Posted on 04/23/2002 6:39:35 AM PDT by StAthanasiustheGreat
Perhaps, but we still need to fast and pray to exorcise this demon from our midst.
It is not a sin to be tempted. It is a sin to succumb to it.
Yep. This is why God told Cain he MUST master sin. We do not HAVE to sin. Even though we are susceptible to sin because of the fall of Adam and Eve, we are not HELPLESS before it. We have the Grace of God to help us stand up to it, and we have Confession to help us deal with it.
I think you'll be pleasantly surprised how much you DO remember. We learned it so young, and even though I was 13 or so when the changes came, I still remembered it when I sang a High Mass with a choir in NJ about 14 yrs. ago. That's the last High Mass I attended. I haven't searched one out, because I've found Parishes which for the most part have still had some reverence in the Liturgy, and when they went too far away from that in my opinion, complained mightily!
This is a great Novak column! He is so right in what he's saying about how it is the 'modernist' priests who have been caught doing this stuff, not the faithful orthodox priests. And I had wondered about the fact that most of these cases were from 10 yrs. ago, and that there didn't seem to be many (if any) from more recently, except by those who had done it before. I had heard from my brother in law (who is one of those prayerful, faithful priests) several years ago that some of the Bishops had done some cleaning out of the Seminaries, so I guess that did bear some fruit in the quality of the men being ordained. And he also mentioned that some of the men who were ordained around the same time as those 'modernist' priests in the late 60s and early 70s, but who had remained orthodox and were appalled at what they saw happening around them, were now coming into positions of influence and power. From there, they will be able to effect some REAL change back to the more prayerful practices of Catholicism. There will be pain for a while, but we'll have to carry that Cross for awhile to renew God's Church.
That's my reply to my Methodist friends who insist that celibacy is the root of all our problems.
They get tongue-tied when I ask them if the problem of celibacy should be solved by having an affair if one's spouse is away for an extended period of time (say, a military deployment for 12 months -- that one always gets my retired army pal).
People outside the Church seem much more troubled by the celibacy of our Priests than we are. I'm not sure why it offends them so, but it does.
Much good, of course, has been done in and through the Church during the last forty years. Many things — ecumenism, for instance — have been made better.
Here we get the Neo-Catholic stock-in-trade: we don't like the parts of Vatican II that embarass us, but we wholeheartedly support the spirit of VatII that informed the Council. This is a FALSE argument. It is intellectually dishonest. You all know the drill: 70 percent of those who call themselves "Catholic" have voted with their feet and no longer attend the new "Mass" that Novak and his Neo-Cath buddies still think is the best thing since sliced bread. To use an old cliche, they ignore the elephant in the living room.
No thanks, Michael, you and yours have done enough damage already.
Amen. Sing it, brother.
But Michael Novak and his Neo-Cath buddies want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to preserve the 90 percent of VatII that have led us to this terrible situation and get rid of the 10 percent that embarasses them. They are not capable of pointing out the obvious: the "reforms" of VatII have destroyed the Church. Compare 2,000 years of Church history to the past 40 years. Enough said.
Well done, my friend. A truly horrid man.
The latter half of the 20th Century was probably the first time in history that the Church laity was more competent, more capable, and more educated than the clergy. While there are potential pitfalls, this presents a marvelous opportunity for the Church.
I predict that the diocesan structure of the Church will slowly disappear, and will be replaced by something similar to what Tom Monaghan (founder of Domino's Pizza) has done in Michigan. He built his own church, built his own schools (including a Catholic law school), and brought in an order of priests and nuns to staff the facilities.
When the local bishop called him to complain that Monaghan had no authority to do this things without the bishop's permission, Monaghan asked the bishop who the f#ck he thought he was, told him to f#ck himself and everyone else who worked in his chancery office, and told him that people like him (the bishop) were irrelevant fools and that the real faith was being preserved (and spread) by people who really matter.
Case closed. Monaghan's chuch and schools are still standing, and the local bishop is sitting around wondering how many assets his diocese will still have left after all the sex abuse lawsuits are adjudicated.
If you can say this to a bishop in America, you can say it to a pope in Rome. I sure hope this story isn't true.
The latter half of the 20th Century was probably the first time in history that the Church laity was more competent, more capable, and more educated than the clergy.
Good points, especially the above. The laity have certainly taken the lead in the traditional movement. Even in organized movements like the SSPX the laity play a central role. They have seen what can be taken away from them if they are not vigilent, so they are now finally willing to stand up and say, as you put it later in your post, "keep your f#*king hands off our Faith."
First of all, Tom Monaghan would never say to his bishop: who the f#ck he thought he was, [or] told him to f#ck himself and everyone else who worked in his chancery office.
In your wishful thinking description he sounds like flaming power-hungry liberal. Tom Monaghan is a devout Catholic and a very humble man. There was a PBS program about him last year. This guy was so humble that he even considered driving a luxury car to be a sinful indulgence.
And here is a quote from Monaghan,
I am grateful that I have been given the faith to accept what the Church teaches. If the Church is for something, I am for it; if the Church is against something, I am against it. To support Church teaching, I don’t have to be able to win a debate. I simply begin with the assumption that the Church is right. Then I try to find projects to spread the faith and to strengthen the Church wherever I can.>If half of what I've heard about Monaghan is true (good and bad), then the story is probably true.
Half-truths are also known as LIES.
>Church laity was more competent, more capable, and more educated than the clergy...
Another example of liberal wishful thinking. The "clergy" do not come from outer space, they are "laity" before they become clergy.
How do they become clergy?
By studying for many years and, finally, being ordained upon graduation. How then, could someone without that painstaking preparation suddenly become more competent, more capable, and more educated, huh?
Finally, a piece of advice, if you post something "revolutionary," check your sources first or at least use common sense.
The story sounds like a liberal ßû|| ~ ©®@þ.
I'm saddened by the abuse, but the blame lies with the abuser, not with the Church. The hierarchy handle the matter in the way they feel appropriate -- sometimes in a manner I do not agree with. I know if my Priest got hold of one of these &%$# imposters, there wouldn't be much left to prosecute.
The progressives who got themselves all sideways on this ("Celibacy is the problem! We need women priests!") will never admit that they caused, and continue to support, the problem. They view my Priest as old-fashioned and out of touch. But the Church I attend has doubled its congregation in the time I've gone there -- no small feat for a small Church in a small town in the middle of nowhere. I'm not the only one driving 60 miles a week to attend Mass (of course, this does make volunteering for the 6:00 AM breakfasts an act worthy of Lent).
The Catholics who attend my Church would no more tolerate a child molester than they would tolerate a woman priest. We have no written rules regarding such things -- nowhere does it say, "You can't bugger kids and women can't serve Mass." We just know it's not done. Individuals inclined toward those beliefs are very uncomfortable there and don't last more than a month.
I had never been to a Mass in the Old Rite until I was nearly thirty, and learned the Mass pretty quickly. With a good missal in hand, you should be able to follow along quite well. After a few Masses you will be able to chant along, and Domine non sum dignus, ut intres sub tectum meum: sed tanto dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea will roll off your tongue like when you were a lad!
When you visit St. John Cantius, you will know why people spend a couple hours in the car each Sunday! Imagine a Sunday Mass where you won't have to grit your teeth during Fr. Liberal's left-wing "homily" or be bombarded w/ ego-worship in the "Prayer of the [un]Faithful"... Light a candle for us poor souls who don't have access to the Latin Mass. I recently moved to Dixie, and there isn't even an SSPX chapel w/in a four-hr drive of my house.
Dominus te cum et Deo vindice!
Looking forward to the same! Catholic bump!
Do you mean 'altar boys'?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.