"Traditional Catholics"

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

I heard recently of a priest from a very conservative order who finally threw his hands up in the air, such was his dismay in ministering to 'traditional Catholics'. He is said to have exclaimed that he could no longer deal with these pious zealots, because they were either "at your feet very nearly worshipping you, or "at your throat" ready to strangle you. Because of this, his religious order changed their venue, to minister to more mainstream Catholics.

-- Buttinzki (Buttinzki@aol.com), December 04, 2002

Answers

"I heard recently..................."

That's gossip. I heard Elvis is still alive.

80 or 100?

-- - (.@.......), December 04, 2002.


Hey, that wasn't me. =)

What does mainstream mean though?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 04, 2002.


The Catholics in the pews, the rank-and-file, the working-class, etc. and so on. It doesn't mean they're liberal necessarily - just that they aren't "doctrinally minded." IE: "everybody else." The kind of Catholics who would probably not spend more than ten minutes of their lives in this forum, not for being offended (though they might wonder at the lengths we go to argue and convince on certain points) but simply because their concerns lie in other areas.

Ultimately, this is the group that priests ought to be concerned about. I would presuppose that they make up the majority of Church-going Catholics out there. Encouraging orthodoxy is all well and good, but polemical disciplinary disputes can tear apart a parish community. And the "rank-and-files" won't have any of it. It is really clericalist to suppose that each lay-persons' concerns are orthodoxy/heterodoxy concerns. They came for Jesus, not for Liturgiam Authenticam.

Time for my disclaimer paragraph: I'm really quite orthodox, as I think some of my friends here can testify. And, actually, the above premises are the reasons why liturgical discipline MUST be followed. When the rules are followed, then they dissapear from the parish consciousness. It's only when they're broken that there's controversy. But really, the rubrics should be "invisible."

I think it's a possibility that the above mentioned priest is speaking about the kinds of Catholics who go to Old Rite masses and tell him not to ever use hosts from the Tabernacle, implying that hosts consecrated at the New Rite masses wouldn't actually be the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. I have a priest friend who encounters this every now and then. And how frustrating it would be!

Of course, it's also important for priests to understand that their office carries with it a dignity that has no origin whatsoever in their own personal merits. So when we speak with reverence and grace to priests, call them "Father," and never refuse what is asked of us unless it is sinful, we do so because we acknowledge the holiness of their office and their function - and only secondarily do we bring in our own considerations of how good the priest happens to be. A priest who causes scandal by fudging liturgy or teaching error is still a priest - but since he is nevertheless also a Christian, he is every bit in need of fraternal correction as a member of the laity.

So, I acknowledge that the above priest may or may not have been in error when he supposed the traditional Catholics were "at your feet nearly worshipping you." Perhaps said Catholics were merely giving due reverence to his priestly office. But of course, no Catholic has the right to be "at the throat" of any priest for whatever reason. After all, if that were literal, you'd be excommunitcated. Instead, if the priest is breaking the rules, then you call the Bishop so he can be at the priest's throat. :)

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), December 04, 2002.


Hi Skoobouy. I have to admit that I understood some, but perhaps not all of what you mean to convey. After years of being a packrat of ideas for lack of knowing what to do with them all, at some point I began cleaning house. Outside the door of my mind is a pile of discarded people and things.

If you dig, somewhere at the bottom of this pile is Rush Limbaugh and his golden EIB microphone. The pile consists mostly of words which were worthless from the get-go or have been morphed and rendered useless by the enemy. Left and right, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, republic, democracy. There are even a couple things in the pile which have real value, such as freedom and hard work, but I find that they clutter the house and have thrown them out anyways. Closer to the top are some well-known apologists and people on a mission of some whatever whatnot great importance, and new car smell, deadlines, bottom lines, progress, efficiency, expediency, and production. It is a giant cult. We, in the modern world, all live in a big, giant, damned cult.

I'm going to add some last items before I have this pile of garbage hauled off, if hauling it off is indeed even possible... perhaps the word orthodox. Juxtaposed and morphed beyond recognition, it stands where it should and doesn't where it should. It has an intrinsic value of meaning, but the word would not even exist if it were not for the presence of an enemy that wished to tear at the essence of reality.

If one does not see mass devastation around them, then have been anesthetized. If they do see the devastation, and the width and depth of it, then they are aware enough to perceive that the hand of the enemy has wrought his highest achievements and that help from God can't be far off. Imho, if someone thinks everything is just a-ok, fine, normal they are either screwed or will eventually take a different view.

I don't know if this is something the clergy can fix anymore, bishops, priests, etc. I think the intervention of God will set things right, at least for a time until they unravel again. I do believe that He will act and act for the sake of unity because I believe that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 04, 2002.


Hey, I *like* Rush Limbaugh!! ;-)

-- Christine L. :-) (chris_tine_leh_man@hotmail.com), December 04, 2002.


Dear Emerald:
Your feelings are consistent with the rest of our society's-- an anxiety that never goes away. Our modern style is to fall back on black humor, and privately cast our eyes upward and pray. That's very understandable.

I want to comfort you with some old-timer's wisdom. Over most of my life, I've been a person who meditates. Meditates on love, life, God, on the actual and the possible. Reflecting on our anxieties and on our hopes.

I tell you nothing new has been occurring under the sun. Maybe the world's very different, just during the last 200 years. But God lives. Men and women still return to Him, when He gives them grace. New wars? So, they're different wars. There have always been wars of devastion and pain. There have always been tyrants and vicitms of tyrants. Only the distribution, the rapid transit of pain, has improved. Escalating anxieties, Yes, but all hasn't changed for the worse. Many good changes are apparent. It's no longer left to chance whether a broken body (or soul) will heal or not. Prayer is always possible, and God still hears. He wants us to be in the world, but not of it. That hasn't changed. Most encouraging, Christ is with us; and He'll stay with us.

I'd much rather cope with this age's problems than to have lived before the coming of Jesus Christ, even as a member of some privleged class. In every age past, men have looked to the immediate future with gloom.

It's because of our fallen nature. The future's dim; and we aren't able to foretell much. That's the way it always was. That aspect of human existence never changes Insecurity and a sense of impending troubles.

We have to accept it, as we accept so much sadness all around. The failures of men and women to understand each other and to obey God's commandments. It always was this way; don't ever think it's new or worse. It isn't. Just trust in God's endless mercy. --Be faithful and we'll have His love for all eternity!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 04, 2002.


Where have all those American flags gone since 9-11? Frome what I see they are down to 2 percent. The politicians are correct. The voters attention span is about ten minutes. How do you think that we get all those promises , to lower taxes before election,but in some mysterious way, they just keep going up, after election. There is only one guy in congress that I would trust completely. Ron Paul, of Texas.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 04, 2002.

Eugene, that was intense. I liked it. Thank you sir. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 04, 2002.

Loosely paraphrased, this means that some priests don't know what to do with real Catholics, and would rather minister to lukewarm "Catholics", quite possibly because they are lukewarm priests.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 05, 2002.

"I will praise you as long as I live, and in your name I will lift up my hands." (Psalm 62)

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), December 06, 2002.


Paul,

You calling my Grandma a lukewarm Catholic? She has a little Marian "shrine" in her bedroom, you know, and she's the most fervent supporter in my whole family of my vocation. But do you think she has the least bit of interest about Liturgiam Authenticam? Phooey; she's happy enough being an active participant in the Mass she can most easily get to in her age. But she's a more vigorous Catholic than many of my seminary colleagues - most of whom are more absorbed into liturgical and doctrinal disputes than any of us here in this forum.

See, Paul, you don't seem to have a distinction in your mind between the "Catholic in the pews" and "lukewarm Catholic," but there's a distinction that needs to be made. Surely, the two are more often than not more of the same (all the more reason to focus on them) but in truth, lukewarmness is prevalent among people of all different Catechetical backgrounds.

Personally, I (and many others in my 20-something generation) learned most of my Catechesis reading authors like John Keats. Catholic apologetics is a great source of religious education, BUT it has some pointed weaknesses (if it's unaccompanied by other forms of education):

-Some of my colleagues are polemical, quarrelsome, and cold. For that matter, they (we, really) are hypocrites. Though some of us try harder than others, orthopraxy is always more difficult than orthodoxy. I had bacon for breakfast this morning (Friday) - wasn't thinking, there. And even though I didn't eat any more meat, I know some who would be clawing at my back for it.

-Some 'traditional Catholics' are plain out and out phoneys. Pfft - liberal ones too. But you know, it's the old lady in the front pew who doesn't know her Inter Insignores from her Ut Unum Sint who can see into the heart of a priest and know he's genuine.

My point here is that "Mainstream" by no means necessarily signifies "liberal." The above 'conservative priest' only needs to be sure he challenges those Catholics, rather than making them comfortable stewing in whatever little world they've made for themselves. And by that, I mean everyone. The priest as prophet should call everyone to something higher, holier, and more Christian than they already know.

And in this respect, it's just a little bit scandalous that some priests go to lengths to manipulate who it is they minister to. Hmm, thinking now, I think we see, priests don't have that right. God will give us the people. Priests just need to be open, obedient to the Church, and mindful of what their soul (which is ordered towards God) is telling them.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), December 06, 2002.


"Loosely paraphrased, this means that some priests don't know what to do with real Catholics, and would rather minister to lukewarm "Catholics", quite possibly because they are lukewarm priests."

And God said he will vomit the "lukewarm" out of His mouth. Let us be sure to be Hot for Christ!

Thanks, Paul, again. I'm glad you found this site, and I hope you stick around.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 06, 2002.


Skoobouy, Good point! But we also need to be mindful of the fact that Christ's standard is THE standard. There is no "curve" for hot, cold and lukewarm. So, that being said, we all need to NEVER be satisfied with where we're at. Satisfaction will lead us to stop persuing the ultimate HOT. Thanks for the input.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 06, 2002.


Dear Skoobouy, I agree with all that you said. I think you misinterpreted what I said though. I would certainly count those little old ladies in the front pews as genuine Catholics, and among the most devout of all, not lukewarm by any means. What I understood from the original post in this thread was that a particular priest said he was tired of trying to serve Catholics of this "traditional" type, and wanted to serve more "mainstream" Catholics [which according to the language of the posting means less devout Catholics]. And that's a real shame, because more good has been wrought by little old ladies saying the rosary than by young yuppies attending four church committee meetings a week. Regards, Paul

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 06, 2002.

Paul, I think that, due to an error in definitions, you misunderstood the opening post. (Buttinzki can correct me if I am the one who is wrong!)

You stated: "What I understood from the original post in this thread was that a particular priest said he was tired of trying to serve Catholics of this 'traditional' type, and wanted to serve more 'mainstream' Catholics [which according to the language of the posting means less devout Catholics]."

I believe that, in the opening message, the word "mainstream" pertains, not to lukewarm/ignorant/dissenting Catholics, but rather to normal, orthodox Catholic who are loyal to the pope -- like Skoobouy's grandmother.
And I believe that, in the opening message, the word "traditional" pertains, not to loyal Catholics in good standing, but those more often called "traditionalist schismatics" or people on the verge of going into schism. THAT, I believe, was the kind of congregation that the "very conservative order" no longer wanted to be saddled with.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 08, 2002.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ