Free Republic

I got involved with the Charismatic movement in it's infancy. At that time, the wildest thing at the service was the 'tongues'. I didn't participate, but listened intently to those who were. To me it was a beautiful and melodious sound. It seemed to occur at emotional moments such as after a really moving hymn or prayer.

I also attended my daughter's church which was Pentecostal. There the congregation engaged in tongues and running. At some moment one or two people would take off running around the church. This was a little scary, but I was a pre VII Catholic, so any expressions of faith or love were deemed out of bounds. But the tongues were still respectfully sung/spoken there.

I have seen some of the laughing and 'slaying in the spirit' on the religious TV programs and have come to the conclusion that to those who are not just faking it, all of these activities are an emotional response to an overwhelming stimulus. Is it contact with the Holy Spirit that is the overwhelming stimulus? I believe that it is occasionally. Just as some may express joy or love with tears or jumping up and down, I believe some of these people are so overwhelmed by the touch of the Holy Spirit that they respond in a way that many of us may believe to be strange. But I think the Father accepts any form of worship and praise that is offered to Him by His children.

"Why do you suppose the Church was jam-packed with nuns and priests and brothers, armies of people dedicated to doing good under the banner of Christ? Do you imagine most did not enter religious life out of personal love for Jesus?"

I didn't mean any offense to you. Fifteen members of my immediate family entered the religious life. I was a seminarian for three years. While some entered religious life out of a love of Jesus, I can only believe that many entered for other reasons. I would point to the numbers that left after Vatican II. If they had entered out of a love of Jesus only, they would have stayed and served Him regarless of the changes. Their faith and their love was apparently of the old order of things, and not of our Lord.

It seems to me that the reduction in the number of churchgoers today versus the 50's and 60's comes directly from the changes of Vatican II. However, it has nothing to do with the order of the Mass. It does have to do with the promulgated idea that change was possible. Prior to Vatican II individual Catholics were not permitted individual thought or study. When the changes came, the floodgates opened and many Catholics began to think for themselves; to open their minds to the leading of the Spirit rather than the church hierarchy. When that began, there was no turning back. Catholics began finding out about a "personal relationship" with Jesus Christ,independent and unreliant upon "intermediaries": priests, bishops, popes, saints, etc. People began thinking and studying scripture, praying for revelation, listening to some of those "separated brethren" and discovering that there is truth outside of the Church. Those who agonize over the loss of the Tridenting are just "navel gazing" and looking for an answer to the problems of the Church that can be easily "fixed". However, that activity is only creating a new "circumcision issue" and lends little to fixing what's wrong.

Obviously you have a Protestant sensibility and an aversion to sacramentals, relics or any object with tangible religious value, except the Bible itself.

It was exactly the above type of posted answers on the rosary,etc., that gave the Protestants so much effective ammunition against us.

Obviously you have a Protestant sensibility and an aversion to sacramentals, relics or any object with tangible religious value, except the Bible itself.

It was exactly the above type of posted answers on the rosary,etc., that gave the Protestants so much effective ammunition against us.

I am over half way to the century mark. The book was my father's and he would be approaching a hundred now if he hadn't gone on to be with the Lord about 12 years ago.

The car was still a relatively recent invention in 1925. Most people didn't have cars to say their rosaries in. No one would have thought to ask a question like that at that time. Nice try though, a twist on the dates for the traditionalists' benefit. I almost didn't catch that. Who was the source on that, Jack Chick?

Congratulations Detective Scupoli, however, the "cars" referred to here are the trolley and subway cars. Please try again.

The Protestant "play book" that I am quoting from is "Our Faith and the Facts" Compiled by the Reverend C. F. Donovan, M.A. (former Managing Editor of "The New World",the official Catholic Newspaper of the Archdiocese of Chicago. It bears the 'Nihil Obstat' of The Very Reverend F.N. McCabe, C.M. D.D. Censor Deputatus; and as stated the Catholic Imprimatur of George Cardinal Mundelein, Archbishop of Chicago. March 2,1925.

The book is a 718 page work on the Faith of the Catholic Church with history, beliefs and a section designed to aid Catholics in answering questions posed by non Catholics about the faith. To that end, is an extensive Q&A section on various aspects of the religion, which I have quoted here in part.

Perhaps you haven't heard these things before, but it was the official teaching of the Church in pre-Vatican days, and accurately reflects the horrors that many of us experienced and rebelled against.

If we are carrying it forward let me repeat it:

Someone else wrote:

What seems to you to be rote is actually a rhythmic means of focusing one's contemplation. This is what the Rosary does--it frees the mind to meditate--or contemplate.

I replied:

What you are describing sounds like a "mantra". And yes, I know what it is to recite the rosary since I did it for about 30 years. Not knowing your age or experience,let me take us back to pre-Vatican days to get a flavor of the rosary that I was taught.

Citations from "Our Faith and the Facts" Imprimatur: George Cardinal Mundelein, Archbishop of Chicago, March 2, 1925.

Questions and answers:

Q. Can a person who says his rosary in the car gain all the indulgences without touching the beads, by simply carrying them in his pocket?

A. No.

Q. Are indulgences lost if several beads of the rosary are lost, or the cross?

A. The indulgences are on the beads; (emphasis added) when several beads are lost, it is allowed to put new ones in their place without affecting the indulgences.

Q. If a friend uses my beads, must they be blessed again for me?

A. Your friend gains no indulgences from your beads. If used without your permission, the beads retain the blessing for you. If you lent them to have your friend gain the indulgences, all the indulgences ceased. If lent merely to oblige a friend, the beads retain all indulgences.

Q. If I put a new crucifix on my rosary, does that affect the indulgences?

A. No. The blessing for the indulgences is attached to the beads.

So, please forgive me if I am skeptical of the rosary, but perhaps we have different views, developed by a different Church. I come out of a time of Catholic training where superstition ruled and the Scapular, Rosary and Medals were not much more than magic charms, and when you add the concept of it being a "mantra", I only become more concerned about the nature and history of the rosary. This is part of the reason that I am suspicious of those who return the Church to Pre-Vatican times. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What seems to you to be rote is actually a rhythmic means of focusing one's contemplation. This is what the Rosary does--it frees the mind to meditate--or contemplate.

What you are describing sounds like a "mantra". And yes, I know what it is to recite the rosary since I did it for about 30 years. Not knowing your age or experience,let me take us back to pre-Vatican days to get a flavor of the rosary that I was taught.

Citations from "Our Faith and the Facts" Imprimatur: George Cardinal Mundelein, Archbishop of Chicago, March 2, 1925.

Questions and answers:

Q. Can a person who says his rosary in the car gain all the indulgences without touching the beads, by simply carrying them in his pocket?

A. No.

Q. Are indulgences lost if several beads of the rosary are lost, or the cross?

A. The indulgences are on the beads; (emphasis added) when several beads are lost, it is allowed to put new ones in their place without affecting the indulgences.

Q. If a friend uses my beads, must they be blessed again for me?

A. Your friend gains no indulgences from your beads. If used without your permission, the beads retain the blessing for you. If you lent them to have your friend gain the indulgences, all the indulgences ceased. If lent merely to oblige a friend, the beads retain all indulgences.

Q. If I put a new crucifix on my rosary, does that affect the indulgences?

A. No. The blessing for the indulgences is attached to the beads.

So, please forgive me if I am skeptical of the rosary, but perhaps we have different views, developed by a different Church. I come out of a time of Catholic training where superstition ruled and the Scapular, Rosary and Medals were not much more than magic charms, and when you add the concept of it being a "mantra", I only become more concerned about the nature and history of the rosary. This is part of the reason that I am suspicious of those who return the Church to Pre-Vatican times.

In addition, you have a really shallow understanding of how traditionalists pray. There are many kinds of prayer, including mental prayer which can lead to even to profound mysical union with God. Traditionalists understand this and encourage this kind of prayer with the Ignatian Spiritual Exercises.

I am familiar with the Ignatian Exercises. And I think that they make my point even better. With each of the recommended exercises and prescribed subjects, there is a certain number of required "rote" prayers.

So even your most "freewheeling" discussions with the Lord have to follow pattern and prescription.

Even though the Lord told us not to pray that way, I believe that He accepts the innocent spirit of the heart that says the same things over and over. But I think it's similar to sending your mother a card for Mother's Day versus personally calling her and telling her how much you love her. The thought is the same, but the bonding effect is very different.

There is only ONE Bridegroom and ONE Bride.

We have no argument on this point. We both recognize the Bridegroom as the Lord Jesus Christ, though you may recognize the Pope as His "replacement" on earth.

But the "BRIDE", who is she? She is the Church, and the Church is the body of believers in Him. Does this exclude our Protestant brothers and sisters who worship, believe in and serve Him with their whole hearts? Is the bride church just a building or a congregation or a denomination? When Jesus returns for His bride church will it only be for Catholics?

If we try to exclude Protestants from unity with us, aren't we trying to cut off the many parts that together make up the Body of Christ?

Every Protestant denomination that I have examined believes in the basic tentets of the Apostolic Creed. (other than the "...one, holy, CATHOLIC part, though they have no trouble with its meaning of universal) Isn't that sufficient for a basis on which to build the unity that Jesus prayed for? Do we need more in order to establish membership in the Body and Bridehood?

I have the deepest love for the Catholic Church and its heritage. My family came over with Lord Baltimore to Maryland. My gr-gr-gr-uncle was a founder of the first Catholic Church west of the Alleghenies at Holy Cross KY. My family has contributed to the religious orders at least since the 1600's. Yet for all of my love for the Catholic Church, I am afraid that I am seeing it's last days as an effective force in the world.

It has been turning in on itself since Vatican II. Traditionalists vs Progressives has become the new order of business. Jesus Christ has been left behind. His words have no meaning to the Traditionalists unless they have been passed through the "chosen ones" of the hierarchy. "That they may be one, Father, even as you and I are one." has no meaning to them, as shown over and over in this post.

Jesus wants Church unity. The Traditionalists want familiarity. To them it has become a matter of faith whether the Mass is in English or Latin (which few of us still know). The beat of the music has to be no faster than the "Tantum Ergo" (no offense to the poster) or it gives no glory to the Lord. The communion rail fences have to be rebuilt, perhaps with concertina this time, or no reverence can be shown to the Lord Jesus. (I wonder why He didn't think of this at the Last Supper. Surely it was just a lapse that He reclined with His friends as He broke bread with them.)

The Traditionalist have to have set prayers to repeat over and over, or according to a hierarchial prescribed sentence if they want to pray. They could never just have a conversation with their Lord, that's too "Protestant".

Their understanding of God has to come from a Catechism because God no longer reveals knowledge of Himself except to people with Divinity degrees or orders.

The Progressive Catholics, praying for effective change in the Church had the greatest of hopes for Vatican II to truly open the doors and windows to the leading of the Holy Spirit. And for awhile it appeared that perhaps that would happen. Because if it opened nothing else, it opened the minds of many Catholics who had never been allowed, under penalty of mortal sin, to think for themselves. It encouraged and permitted us to open the Scriptures and look at God's Word for ourselves and listen to what the Holy Spirit had to say to us through the Word that He wrote by His inspiration.

Yes, there were abuses by some, but the Church was strong enough to weather the storm and correct those in error. But instead, the Traditionalists who didn't flee the Church, screamed so loudly that a clear line was drawn between them and their brother Catholics, and even those who just wanted to worship quietly were drawn into the battle, and had to choose sides.

The Progressives, now emboldened with a new "personal relationship" with Jesus, were forced to fight or flee. Many, if not most, chose to worship without fighting and went elsewhere. Those caught in between had to make the same choice, and many left.

Now, the Traditionalists may finally win. If the next Pope reverses Vatican II, he will light the fuse of schism in the Catholic Church. If we cannot believe in the ability of a council to set the course for our Church, then we can not depend on any of the authority of the Church, including the Pope.

Mixed with the current scandals, the faltering health of the Pope, and the world situation, the Church, is experiencing a hemhorrage of faith unparalleled in it's history.

Soon, I believe, you Traditionalists will have your way, and you will be alone in the Catholic Church. You can finger your beads and call on Mary for salvation. You can "mea culpa" and "Ite missa est" to your heart's content. You can lock Jesus up in His tabernacle and burn candles day and night without any interference from the Progressives.

But remember, we loved the Catholic Church as much as you did. In my case, I just love the Lord more.

I'm a little lost on the concept of segregation being a white racist thing. I was only two years old when Thurmond ran for President so I need some educating. It appears to me that segregation is a black thing: Miss Black America, Black Expo, Black Caucus, Kwanza, NAACP, ad infinitum. If Lott was for this kind of segregation why is he being condemned by the black leadership? ;-)

The Pope is considered infallible only when speaking 'ex-cathedra'. This is not one of those occasions. However, the bishops speaking in concert at a Council are also considered infallible in their pronouncements. What I continually see posted at this site is a lack of belief that Vatican II was infallible in it's pronouncements. So I am confused because it seems that many of the old Traditionalists believe in the doctrine of infallibility only if it fits their beliefs and concepts of the Catholic Church. If the doctrine of infallibility fails in Vatican II, then it fails with the Papacy as well, and all non-Biblical precepts of the faith fade away with the doctrine.

At the foot of Calvary there was also no singing, organ playing, Gregorian chant, or rosaries. The only people speaking in Latin were the Roman soldiers, and no one was dressed in expensive vestments. What is your point?

"But when you pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do; for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking." Matt. 6:7

Your lengthy line up of Roman Catholic scholars, clergy and Popes does not do much to advance the point of where salvation can be obtained. Everything posted depends on the papal infallibility doctrine for authority. What else would we expect from those whose "paycheck" was authorized by the Pope, if not the "subject" of their next barbeque.

If you want to prove anything to skeptics, it will have to be in the infallible Word of God. The only thing that I have heard on the authority of the successors of Peter is Matthew 16:18-19 And I say also unto you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The entire scriptural argument for infallibility through succession rides on these two verses being a literal handing over of Jesus' authority to Peter alone, even though four verses later He also calls Peter "Satan".

The question then arises: What did Jesus mean by the "Petros" "Petra" charge?

The "Petra" rock, througout the Bible, is a symbol of strength and foundation. What had Peter just done that warranted this response from Jesus? In an act of faith, Peter had recognized Jesus as the Son of the Living God. It was this act of faith, this recognition of Jesus as the Son of God, that was the "Rock" upon which Jesus would build His church,not the man,or his successors.

How can I be so sure of this? Because those who were there with Jesus and Peter actually recognized St James as the decision making head of the church. Acts 15:19 James,after hearing the witnesses on the circumcision question (including Peter)who testified before the assembled apostles and elders, renders the judgement: Therefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from the Gentiles are turned to God........."

This was not Peter making the determination it was James that the apostles and elders recognized as the leader of the Church. So did they just miss the jurisdictional transfer of power from Jesus to Peter or did they understand His true intent. It also seems that such an important transfer of power would have been a point recognized in the other three gospels, but it isn't.

Without such a transfer of power, Papal infallibility fails.

My second problem with the stand of the RC is that they are the Church. It is my understanding that the "Church" is the Body of Christ, not a building, denomination or religious entity. Whoever believes in Jesus as Saviour is a member of the Body and a member of the Church.

I mentally separate the Catholic hierarchy from the Church, because they have separated themselves from the Church, i.e. the Body of Christ. The fact that I may disagree with some of the tenets of Catholicism does not mean that I disagree with all of them. I disagreed with some of Clinton's policies and I disagree with some of Bush's policies but I don't give up my American citizenship. Likewise I may disagree with some of the hierarchial decisions of the Church but why would I separate from that particular body of believers. I believe that my inclusion in the Body of Christ, His church, is not under the authority of the Pope. I have to follow the leadings of my Lord and Savior in my faith and in my actions.

From your pompousness I suspect that you are either clergy or a wannabee. Like them, what gives you the authority to question me and my faith? Religion is man's attempt to reach God; Faith is God's attempt to reach man. Religion is imperfect, faith perfect from their nature. If you knew the difference you would understand what the Lord had to face in the religious pompousness of the Pharisees of His day. You have no right or reason to question my identity, my parish or my diocese.