Wednesday, January 02, 2008

Comments on Catholicism that deserve a comment.

There is a reason why I have not been bloging on Mother Church lately. I consider the interaction of e-apologists and defenders of Mother Church to be a waste of time (for me), because, quite frankly, who dares speak for Rome is the Magisterium itself. They told me that I was mis-catechized by the nuns of St. Mary's College, Quezon City, and recoleto priests of San Sebastian College, Manila, that is why I am a Protestant today (they always have someone else to blame) so heck, if I can not trust the nuns or priests to teach me correctly what they call the official teachings, I better get it from the horse's mouth and frankly you got to be a horse before you could get me to listen to you, I am not stupid, I learned my lessons well. So, I am not interested in one's version of Romanism or their interpretation of it. So to put it bluntly and with no dis-respect, if you do not come from Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, understand if I do not take your opinion seriously, no hard feelings. I am very sure there can be interesting and educational dialog but I have not great amounts of time at the moment.

Some comments that were posted lately though deserve some short comments and I thank all those who visited, read and commented:

From Augustinian Successor:

True Catholics who know that to be Catholic is to be Protestant.
Yours Truly: This reminds me of one RC guy (the one who wish for this blog to shut down) who was honest enough to exclaim what his college professor said, that to be Catholic is to be (classic) Protestant. This is quite correct. In the end really the RC is following what the Protestant is doing, coming down to the wire, he is also following the dictate of his conscience i.e. also making a private decision, in relegating his authority of faith to something outside him, in this case the Magisterium. The Protestant process is in-escapable. In short everyone is doing a Luther in a great sense, whether one is honest enough or not.

From Past Elder:

I consider the Roman Church to be nothing more than the state religion of the Western Roman Empire and the Orthodox Church the state religion of the Eastern Roman Empire both outlasting the Empire which spawned them

Yours Truly: I wanted to continue the quote of Bro. Terry but it is not for wimps and those with onion skin sensibilities whose feelings are easily hurt so please read the comments in the previous post at your own risk (reader discretion implied). I recall what I heard of one who swam, for example the river Bosphorous getting shocked to find that it was as if time stood still when he got there, he concluded that it was Byzantinian culture that he got himself into. By analogy, and to the Elder's comment, the RC can be seen as such as well, the religious culture of the Western Holy Roman Empire. But it seems to me, one has to have eyes and ears that are exorcised of fanaticism in order to conclude this. You got to step outside and study this object objectively and without romanticism (was that a pun? I am not sure).

29 comments:

Past Elder said...

Ain't it a hoot, brother -- they've got this Magisterium infallibly teaching the full Christian faith with a special infallibility at the top in case of real tough cases, so you'd think that would pretty much make it clear, yet I like yourself get told, oh, those teachers and priests you had, they weren't really teaching Catholicism even though the Catholic Church maintained them as teachers and pastors -- not to mention the mountains of print and pixels spent explaining what the Magisterium has explained. What a wonder guarantee, this Magisterium!

Your cross town counterpart loves to cite the "oh, they weren't really Catholic" thing all the time. Of course, "they" would see him as a barrier to the renewal of authentic Catholicism. Maybe my New Year's resolution should be just keep away, which I do actually but apparently made a mistake in thinking a Lutheran background might have left some residue of reality against the answer that an authoritarian structure provides for those who seek that.

Maybe I'll stick to my homeboys, as they say, like yourself.

L P Cruz said...

P.E.

In RC mentality, when the product is faulty, it has got to be the product's fault not the manufacturer's process. See how fanaticism can get you?

The late Fr. deSanctis, whose life I blogged here said, to be an RC is to loose common sense. This is bad since common sense is not so common and what more if you should loose it? You would be dog's breakfast.

Your fellow homeboy,

LPC

Past Elder said...

Hey Lito!! -- we each won Golden Aardies! You're a repeat winner, but this is my first time. Check it out at Aardvark Alley.

L P Cruz said...

Congratulations Dr. Terry!! I will check it out. How nice.

LPC

Augustinian Successor said...

Congrats to you brethren!

Making the sign of the Cross +

;-)

L P Cruz said...

A.S.

Did you see the controversial query I sent Dr. Greg? I did not mean to be steer some feathers, honest, not my style, just honest query.

LPC

Augustinian Successor said...

No, Bro. Lito, what query?

L P Cruz said...

http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2008/01/baby-steps-or-alien-doctrine.html

Past Elder said...

Another question, and entirely off the subject. Just took a look at your site. So here's my question, to remove a part of my ignorance.

As you know, generally in Spanish one has two "last names", the father's family name and then the mother's family name. Is this the custom among Filipinos generally, or at least those with Spanish influence. I would imagine Tagalog would not have that construction, but of course I don't know. So I'm asking!

It was interesting that when where I work first got a location in Puerto Rico this confused the Anglo service centres! Many PRs adopt the English usage and go by what would be the first of one's last names when in an English context, but otherwise retain the full Spanish last name, so when from a PR context these names came in on documents in full Spanish form the Anglos at first took the mother's family name to be the English style single last name!

L P Cruz said...

P.E.
Yes, it follows the Spanish practice.

In general there are 4 names. You have 2 first names and 2 second names. In the old documents, my mother's last family name is Perez (hence, why LP. My father's name is Cruz, so in the docs, they will write my first name followed by my fathers name then the 'and' word in Spanish 'y', so I am Cruz y Perez. But the American influence has gained grown since then, hence we write our mother's name in the middle.

So my kids have 4 names, 2 first names and 2 last names. But the practice is to use the 2nd first name. So if you are given Maria Jose Reyes Garcia, you will be called 'Pepe'. This person is a boy but his first first name is Maria. Now this must get you on a spin, where did that 'Pepe" come from (nick name for Jose). Then there is this Communist leader whose name is Jose Maria Sison. People do not call him Maria for obvious reasons ;-), they like to live longer if you know what I mean. It is really confusing and I do not know how we manage to go through life with this.

My name (please do not tell any one) is Rosalito, hence, my nick name is Lito. I am ashamed of my first name because it is so feminine. I only have 1 first name.

When I worked in Venezuela, I got confused too and I had to adjust and forget the American style. I had to psych my self when I got handed a business card with at least 4 names.

Confusing no?

LPC

PS. Ricky Martin that PR singer guy has one favorite PI food, he loves - the Adobo.

Past Elder said...

Not confusing at all. So, you're really LCP!! To my knowledge, no PR interchanges the order of last names for the Anglos, but quite commonly drops the second last name (mother's family) when functioning in an Anglo environment. And of course it makes marriage easier to express in English. You would be Mr Cruz and she would be Mrs Cruz.

Rosalito is a fine name!

Neither my birth name Douglas nor my adopted name Terence has a real Spanish equivalent, so the crew dubbed me El Teraco!

I must be getting old -- I've lived through two Rickys, Martin now and Ricardo before him! The earlier was Cuban though, but that's close enough. It amazes me how many PR women are named Jennifer -- not because of Lopez, in her generation.

L P Cruz said...

P. E.

El Teraco? hawhawhaw(LOL) At least it is not El Terrible, considering our fiends have asked if you were the anti-Christ already.(LOL).

There is this PR singer the new husband of J. Lo, called Marc Antony, whose first wife was Dianara, a beauty queen from PR. Dianara hanged out in PI doing acting work, she was so famous in PI but went back to PR heart broken winded up marrying Marc. We got some folk hanging out from PR and some PI folk in PR now.

The closest Hispanics to the PIs now has been revealed to be the Mexicans. Story is that King Philip sent his conquistadores to PI after they were assigned in Mexico.

Case in point - proof - the Tamales. This food has no semblance of being Asian but the Pinoys (Filipinos) love them, guess what, the Mexicans have Tamales too.

Do you know something funny in PI, I keep on laughing as I remember it now. When I was a kid, you go to the traditional Chinese restaurant, and the menu ----- is not in Tagalog, not in Chinese, not in English --- it is in Spanish!!!!

Pata Hamon (leg ham), Ampalaya con Carne (bitter melon with beef) etc (Chinese food with Spanish names).

Duh???

LPC

Past Elder said...

There is one Chinese restaurant here run by ethnic Chinese from PI -- I'd love to see a Spanish menu there! The menu is in English, though. Here, Chinese restaurants commonly number their items, and the Occidental clientele often orders that way -- I'll have the number 14, eg. I wonder if that's just from being in the US or if that happens elsewhere? What really bugs me is, you have to ask for chopsticks in almost any of them. I can handle chopsticks just fine and really find a metal shovel (fork or spoon) spoils the taste. But, often I'm the only one using them, a 57 year old round eye pale blotchy skinned English type and younger Asians are using forks!! Now what's up with that?? In another Chinese place, the staff speaks to each other in English because while some are Chinese the rest are Koreans!

Marc Antony has some following here. He hasn't been the crossover that Ricky Martin has been, but his albums sell well in the Latin market here.

There's tons of "Mexican" restaurants here, but generally they aren't very authentic or even run by Mexicans, except those in the Mexican part of town. The idea of having a tamale in PI is something I would not have expected! PRs as a rule don't care much for Mexican food and actually I like the Americanised version better than the authentic stuff, so I guess I follow suit.

So far, I haven't posted anything on your cross town pal's blog this year. I think it's a lost cause. They never even got my only point, which wasn't even a Lutheran one but rather an attempt to express why I dumped Catholicism after the council on Catholic grounds, 20 years before becoming Lutheran, my point to them being if you think you've converted to Catholicism, you haven't.

Oh well. Like I said before, it's more fun blogging with my homeboys anyway!

L P Cruz said...

P.E.

I can not appreciate Asian food without chop sticks, it is something not right. It is not orthodox and unconfessional too(LOL).

I know what you mean, and I am glad you re-emphasized your point because I am not far in analysis of your comments, I got it I think -- which is correct, it is not the same Catholicism they think that ejected Luther.

To me this is like (and I like them to interact with this): rowing two boats at the same time with one leg on each boat. One leg is on a boat of all good things Protestant, the other leg on the boat that is called historic Catholicism (= Christianity?). They do not see that you can be what you want to be and still be an RC without having to admit that you are contradicting yourself. It is like being safe. I agree, I do not think too that they have converted. To justify they have to re-understand the documents and expositions of the Magisterium by (psychologically) in Prot/Lutheran terms and so what else? But be comfortable in the Tiber?

That is why sometimes, you can get exhausted because even before you speak, you have been looked at with colored lenses. So sometimes it is a lost cause. There is a time to speak and time to just simply stop talking.

Have you noticed that there are no RC zealots lately that have engaged the post? I think the point is fair, if you ain't the Magisterium, why should you be believed?

LPC

Jeff Tan said...

Hi Lito. It's been a while since I've dared comment here -- not for lack of hospitality, but things got interesting when you remarked some time ago that I was an Evangelical trying very hard to remain Catholic (something to that effect). It needed some time to mull over. :-)

Anyways, concerning your frustration in this post, I can understand. I have my own amazement at the very different experience I had. The ritualism, if that's the proper term for it, that you must have experienced in Manila, is not what I encountered in Lucena. I think I saw similar ritualism when I visited Bicol once, but it wasn't in my own hometown. When I moved to Manila, my "parish" was La Salle, with very little ritualism. By ritualism I refer to an imbalance where devotion to one saint or the other outweighed recourse to the Eucharist or the Bible. In Lucena, in Holy Rosary Catholic School, I think there was a good emphasis to prayer (including the rosary) which culminates (of course) with the Eucharist (Sundays, First Fridays, the few key feasts in a year). In La Salle, we had daily Eucharist, the Angelus at noon and evening hours. So again, the Eucharist and prayers. No ritualism. I relate these to give you an idea of my experience being very different to yours.

Am I saying that your parish and schools were mistakenly too ritualistic, obscuring true worship and prayer? I guess so, and it does happen. I'm sure Dr. Jose Rizal was pretty accurate concerning the 19th century situation of Catholicism in the Philippines (north anyway). No less disturbing are stories of horrible catechism and liturgical abuses in America, detracting radically from Scripture as well as Magisterial dogma. Scandals do happen. So your words ring true, despite being said in exasperation: the Magisterium is the final arbiter. I've encountered bad teaching from Catholic sources, both back home and here in Melbourne, but thankfully few and far between. How did I know they were bad teaching? Sometimes they contradict Scripture and Tradition, sometimes they might have been correct but given at the wrong time or lacked clarity.

And which RC zealots? Not me I hope? :-) This is my first comment here in perhaps 6 months!

L P Cruz said...

Jeff,

Thanks for the visit, I know we have friendly discussions even though we are on the either side of the divide.

The ritualism was there alright but I do believe that I was catechized well - for as a child, I was definitely given the impression that if I do not behave and follow the teachings of Mother Church, say for example, skip church mass, I was damned. If I am put on a witness stand and I am asked - did Mother church teach you that you are saved by works--- I have to say yes. I do believe I was taught that well.

Then I for some reason got a 'revelation' in a preaching service that was why Jesus came, to pay for the things I could not perform, and I seemed to latch into that, I so thoroughly enjoyed it. I remembered that night going home rejoicing at the truth - we go to heaven not because we are good because we are not! But someone Good - Christ paid, took over our debt. I slept like a baby, as I recall.

The rest is now ongoing history.

I am a bit older than you, in fact Past Elder and I were already at least in our pre-teens when Vatican II came, I heard the mass in Latin many times and so did Past Elder so I guess, we are trying to say, please give us a bit of credit instead of assuming we misunderstood Mother Church, I think we understood her well and we have arrived at a different conclusion or course of action.

I do not think I was mis-catechized on the core issues, since RC e-apologists deny sola fide and emphaize works, I believe that is what I heard when I was in my elementary years. I was taught faith was necessary to prepare for works but ultimately it is works that count in God. What I have been taught is being confirmed by the expositions of RC e-pologists.

LPC

PS I think I was catechized using the Baltimore catechism, not all were wrong, God still used it to form my understanding of Him specially my sin, i.e, the Law.

Christine said...

The ritualism was there alright but I do believe that I was catechized well - for as a child, I was definitely given the impression that if I do not behave and follow the teachings of Mother Church, say for example, skip church mass, I was damned. If I am put on a witness stand and I am asked - did Mother church teach you that you are saved by works--- I have to say yes. I do believe I was taught that well.

Lito, your experiences just about mirror my husband's. Catholic school from kindergarten on. Baltimore Catechism, heavy on novenas, devotions, little exposure to Scripture, very legalistic. He remembers as a small child how the sisters at his parish school would point to the crucifix and tell the kids that their sins nailed Christ to the cross so they'd better behave (an overreaction to the hostility of Protestant culture in the U.S. that continually portrayed Catholics as lax on morals). Not a real good approach for small children, methinks (just as when he was still an active police officer he would discourage parents from telling kids that if they were bad Officer so and so would come and get them -- not a good way for kids to learn to trust the police and see them as friends in time of need).

Although he still prefers the Latin Mass aesthetically he never wants to go back to those pre-Vatican II days, but neither is he a fan of liberal, doctrine-free Christianity.

I don't doubt at all that you were well-catechized as it was done back then, but my experiences as an adult convert are radically different from yours.

Which doesn't mean I don't believe or respect your experience.

L P Cruz said...

Christine,

that if they were bad Officer so and so would come and get them

Oh so so real! I was told the same thing. Also I was told that if I ever step foot in a Protestant church, I will go straight to hell.

You might be right on ritualism, they did instilled in us to say pray the rosary, pray to the host meditatively etc etc but I was a kid, how was I to know that I was being fed spiritual food from the $2.00 shop?

Also Christine, in my experience and exchanging notes with ex-Cath Latinos who are now Prots, they are just as much suspicious of the Magisterium as Filipinos who became Prots. So it seems it is those of Anglo-Saxon bent that are a bit enamored with Mother Church. I will post something on this from another guy and see what you think.

LPC

Jeff Tan said...

> definitely given the impression that
> if I do not behave and follow the
> teachings of Mother Church, say for
> example, skip church mass, I was
> damned.

I do not remember being taught this way, and I do come from a Catholic school from kindergarten through to university. I can only cringe at the thought that others like yourself had to be terrorized in this manner. As Christine says, that is not a good way to catechize children!

> If I am put on a witness stand and
> I am asked - did Mother church teach
> you that you are saved by works--- I
> have to say yes.

:-( Once again, this is sad. I know that works of mercy and charity were strongly encouraged in my primary and high school, but there were no attached threats to say that we would be damned otherwise. Our religious education was primarily managed by loving dominican nuns, and what I remember mostly was that theirs was to emphasize the positive aspects of being a disciple, i.e., this is what will please the Lord.

> Then I for some reason got a
> 'revelation' in a preaching service
> that was why Jesus came, to pay for
> the things I could not perform, and I
> seemed to latch into that, I so
> thoroughly enjoyed it.

Then that was a blessing for you, for I cannot imagine how faith could grow in an atmosphere of threats.

> I am a bit older than you,

You'll be pleased to know then that I did not imagine that you were that much older. I know that your eldest is already a young adult, but I had simply assumed that you had married young.

> please give us a bit of credit instead
> of assuming we misunderstood
> Mother Church,

I understand, and I do not mean to imply wrongdoing or culpable ignorance on your part. I can only be amazed at how inconsistent catechism can be. I think we also used the Baltimore catechism (I seem to remember a small catechism that was Q&A in appearance when I was little), but I did not recall religion class as being about fire, brimstone, damnation and whatever manner of negativity. My close friends from the same class (kinder through high school) are similarly positive, not negative, about the Catholic faith. Luck of the draw, I guess.

> I was taught faith was necessary to
> prepare for works but ultimately it is
> works that count in God.

Not only works, I hope, as that would be strange and wrong. However, I think we received it as the Gospels narrate the Lord's admonitions: I was hungry and you fed me, thirsty and you gave drink, naked and you clothed me, happy are the peacemakers, etc. I guess we had a fairly good balance in our catechism and the life of our faith in that school. But perhaps Dominicans are to take credit for this?

> What I have been taught is being
> confirmed by the expositions of RC
> e-pologists.

Me included? Remember calling me an Evangelical trying hard to remain Roman Catholic? ;-)

Jeff Tan said...

Christine: if they were bad Officer so and so would come and get them

This is an approach that my wife uses from time to time. Lito (and any Filipino) would appreciate it better in Tagalog: huhulihin ka ng pulis!

Christine: I don't doubt at all that you were well-catechized as it was done back then, but my experiences as an adult convert are radically different from yours.

I think I can generalize this disparity in this manner: there are good catechists and bad catechisms, just as there are good catechisms and bad catechisms (yes, I think the Baltimore catechism is not as good as the more recent CCC, or Fr. John Hardon's 1975 version of the catechism). It's a sad state of affairs, but our different experiences point to this fact. I did not come to the conclusion that many ex-Catholics did from childhood about saved by works alone -- which makes small wonder that they left that faith when they learned the truth. But in which lifetime can we expect perfect orthodoxy for all who teach the faith? Even in the Apostolic age, there were already false teachers. But I never intended to suggest in the past that former Catholics chose to deliberately misunderstand the faith. However, now that we are all able to discuss these matters with faith and reason, we can make headway in arriving at where we all stand, including where we stand together and where we stand apart.

Lito: if I ever step foot in a Protestant church, I will go straight to hell.

That sounds like the huhulihin ka ng pulis sort of knee-jerk admonition one might get.

I remember Lito once posting about a theory of layers in Catholicism. The theory probably holds, but without the conspiracy aspects. The ritualistic, fire and brimstone, us-versus-them catechism Lito remembers is perhaps a holdover from how the Spanish colonizers catechized our country. Because this is not the same catechism we hear or experience in other parts of the country, including those from universities like De La Salle where I attended. In primary and high school, I guess I can also point out that our priests were from a different background, being from China, and one being Jesuit.

L P Cruz said...

Jeff,

The point is emerging and that is the Catholicism you grew up was not the same as ours , P.E. included. That is the point of P.E. in many of his posts. We were born pre-Vatican II. Hence, you can appreciate now I hope when I say, you are an Evangelical trying very hard to be loyal to Mother Church, but I respect that. She was not a tyrant to you but she was to us.

One time I went to confession, and I forgot the act of contrition, the friar of the church, came out of the confession booth and scolded me for not being able to recite : Bless me father for I have sinned, my last confession was... He sent me home in anger, I guess because I was wasting his time, I was about 11-12 when that happened.

Now this was mild terror compared to being sexually abused which happened in America of course.

By our definition, ie based on the Catholcisim we grew up, your internal faith is not Roman as well as that of Dave. You define your Catholicism now, post Vatican II and so I understand why you wonder why when we say that a Prot who becomes RC and yet does not have the RC piety we understood she required, has not really become an RC.

Perhaps that explains it, no?


LPC

Jeff Tan said...

Lito: you are an Evangelical trying very hard to be loyal to Mother Church, but I respect that.

Thanks. :-)

But to be clear, I have read up on the catechism and a few other books and my ideas on salvation, justification, sanctification and other things to square. I think it's safe to say that you believe my understanding on those mentioned points to be Evangelical. But I add that they are quite Catholic. Which is why it is perhaps true indeed that there is so much that can be affirmed together.

scolded me for not being able to recite

This is horrible. No I did not encounter this. Even our jesuit priest, who was outwardly stern, was a compassionate confessor, and offered ample explanation and advice. I remember entering the confessional thoroughly nervous and guilty, and coming away at peace, confirmed and firmly resolved with God's grace. We were even taught to sing "Come Holy Spirit" tenderly while waiting for confession in order to relax and to seek His guidance in making a good confession.

By our definition, ie based on the Catholcisim we grew up, your internal faith is not Roman as well as that of Dave.

Dave who? Shutz? Really?

You define your Catholicism now, post Vatican II and so I understand why you wonder why when we say that a Prot who becomes RC and yet does not have the RC piety we understood she required, has not really become an RC.

I understand what you mean. But at the same time, even pre-Vatican II, I think you can find great differences between western Catholicism as against that of former Spanish colonies.

It also should be a sign of hope: if post-Vatican II Catholicism, such as mine, or that of converts like Scott Hahn and Mark Shea, are Evangelical to you, then it should be seen as a vindication of Vatican II -- liturgical abuses and heterodoxies not included, of course, e.g., "liturgical" dancing, "Imagine" by John Lennon during Mass, angels explained during sermons as purely literary devices, etc..


Aargh... this is keeping me away from my research! I hope your thesis is coming along fine, Lito. Philip's is on a strict deadline now, v.v. his visa. Pray for him, please. He's got until March.

L P Cruz said...

Jeff,

Blogging is a curse and I remember I got the idea from you. Go back to work! (LOL!!!)

Perhaps Evangelicalism (the new) is so similar to RC that is why you find the two no longer at logger heads. But old Prot is not the same as Evangelicalism of today so there will still be logger head butts.

Yes I mean D. Shutz. I say this because he can not possibly say he loves the spirituality of Luther whom Mother Church has condemned and ex-communicated. That is rather un-RC to say, based on my knowledge of RC as I was taught.

.western Catholicism as against that of former Spanish colonies Yes that is true as Fr. Luigi DeSanctis wrote about.

Yes, Philip has been on my mind, I shall be praying for him, I might drop by tonight as they want me to clear my desk and if you are there I shall say "hello".

LPC

Past Elder said...

There are plenty of horror stories on all sides. I remember dating a Norwegian Lutheran girl some years ago, who told me her grandmother told her never to go near a Catholic church because the priests will steal you and you'll never be seen again. My mom used to tell me about being hidden with the black kids during KKK marches, or the time some kids broke into the Catholic church basement, because they wanted the guns they were told Catholics kept in the basements of the their churches awaiting the signal from the pope to start an insurrection.

I have never meant to say that the pre Vatican II church was paradise with no blemishes. It most certainly wasn't. By the same token, I do not mean to say that the post Vatican II church is simply "spirit" of Vatican II types run amok. It isn't. What I do mean to say is, pre or post council, one has to throw all that out, every single religion there is is full of people who abuse it in its own name and/or bend it to their own purposes. If one judges religion on that basis, they all fail, including the one I hold now.

So I'm not talking about nuns who rapped kids knuckles with rulers or who forbade patent leather shoes because they might shine up a girl's dress, and I'm not talking about "spirit of Vatican II" types who make Catholicism political leftism with vestments.

Right along with the ruler rapping there were people who truly believed and lived the Catholic faith before the council, and right along with the leftists are people who believe and live the Catholic faith after the council. Those are the ones I'm talking about. Leaving the abusers of either age in the dust, the believers of one age simply do not hold to the same faith as the other.

I didn't leave the RC church because of the spirit of Vatican II types. Actually, I rather like them, even though I agree with them on next to nothing. But the fact is, both the "conservative" and the "traditional" (I'm not sure if the usage has currency outside the US, but here the terms are coming to mean those who hold to the actual faith of Vatican II as contained in its documents and those who hold the faith of Trent in its documents, respectively) decry the abuses of the "spirit of Vatican II" types. And for a while I thought that might be the basis on which to stay.

When I left is when I really studied the DOCUMENTS of Vatican II. It was there I found a religion even more un-Catholic and in places anti-Catholic that the worst I've seen from the "spirit" types. The traditionalist rejection of the novus ordo, for example, is not based on what is made of it in parishes everywhere, but on the typical Latin original texts. Likewise that most miserable of wastes of paper, The Catechism of the Catholic Church.

It was when I saw that if the post conciliar church got it to-gether, pulled the plug on the "spirit" types and enforced what's in the documents, one would have a faith and church even more removed from the Catholic faith and church than that of the "spirit" types, that I left. And the obvious push of JPII and BXVI is a document of Vatican II Catholic Church.

In other, shorter, words, the church with which your cross town counterpart seeks to think, and to which the contributors along the same lines seek to think too, is in fact manifestly not the Roman Catholic Church though to them it seems precisely that. My speculation is, they see the spirit of Vatican II church for not being the document of Vatican II church, and rightly so, but do not see that the document of Vatican II church is no less, and even more, a rejection of the Catholic Church before it than the spirit of Vatican II church. Hence the ludicrous attempts to try to tell the Orthodox and Protestants that we're really the same and with dialogue we will be one again. The Orthodox, rightly, aren't buying it, and neither should we. And I agree with what I think you are saying, Brother Lito, that the converts to post conciliar Catholicism have not converted to Catholicism at all, and that on two grounds, one being that that to which they have converted is not Catholicism, and the other being that that to which they have converted is simply a way to augment their former confession to attain the respectability of an apostolic, ruptureless seemingly objective veneer. Which far from vindicating post conciliar Catholicism, exposes it for the fraud it is, being neither the Catholic faith nor the catholic faith.

L P Cruz said...

P.E.

Once again, a weighty analysis.

Serious? The KKK and RC stories?

You know my grandpa was a lapsed RC, he went to church, did his devotions but never to mass! Maybe he was a crypto-Prot. Anyway, I heard skeptical remarks from him, he said to me one time, "do you know why Sta Rita College (run by nuns) is besides San Sebatian College(run by priest) (only separated by a parking lot)"?, I know you know what he was suggesting so I won't repeat.

and that on two grounds, one being that that to which they have converted is not Catholicism, and the other being that that to which they have converted is simply a way to augment their former confession to attain the respectability of an apostolic, ruptureless seemingly objective veneer. Which far from vindicating post conciliar Catholicism, exposes it for the fraud it is, being neither the Catholic faith nor the catholic faith.


Another wit and humor, I got the insight from you Bro. Terry...but see my lastest post, correct my impressions of your comments if it needs correcting, up there.


LPC

Past Elder said...

Serious.

Christine said...

or the time some kids broke into the Catholic church basement, because they wanted the guns they were told Catholics kept in the basements of the their churches awaiting the signal from the pope to start an insurrection.

Oh my husband knows that one, plus the stories about the tunnel that connected the rectory to the convent so that priests and nuns could meet halfway for their orgies.

On the other hand, my Lutheran mom always heard the stereotype that Catholics could commit all the sins they wanted as long as they regularly went to confession, then they could go right out and do them all over again with impunity. At the same time, though, she said she was always envious of the little girls who got to participate in the May Crownings at the local Catholic parish.

every single religion there is is full of people who abuse it in its own name and/or bend it to their own purposes. If one judges religion on that basis, they all fail, including the one I hold now.

Yup.

So I'm not talking about nuns who rapped kids knuckles with rulers or who forbade patent leather shoes because they might shine up a girl's dress,

Nor am I nor is my husband.

Leaving the abusers of either age in the dust, the believers of one age simply do not hold to the same faith as the other.

And here is where we will perpetually disagree (although always mindful of Herr Scheutz's admonition that we can still love those with whom we disagree).

Becoming Catholic was so comfortable for me simply because I was Lutheran first. There is no "former" Catholicism for me to go "back" to because it was never home for me. Yes, I appreciated the beauty of the Tridentine Rite and surely there were those who thrived in it. But amidst the splendor, ritual, incense and mystery of it all it too often bred a mean-spiritedness (again, without going into details my Catholic grandmother's treatment of my Lutheran mother was reprehensible) that I have no longing for.

My husband (and his family) are
stellar examples of Catholics who were never evangelized (yes, he was an altar boy -- can still rattle off the Latin responses). It is only now through our conversations that he is understanding that a Catholic can have a personal relationship with Jesus without resorting to the paradigms of fundamentalist Christianity.

The Catholic Church is returning to some of the practices of the early Church (hallelujah) and sloughing off some the crusts of the centuries that needed to go. Word AND Sacrament, honor to Mary and the Saints as part of the Body of Christ but ALWAYS subordinate to him, respect for our hierarchy but a renewed respect for the royal priesthood that Christ's people are.

It fits me just fine.

Past Elder said...

And there is why I find "spirit of Vatican II" Catholics much easier to abide than "documents of Vatican II" Catholics, even though I would agree on much more with "documents of Vatican II" Catholics.

Your cross-town counterpart, some of his commenters (some of whom are showing up here now) et al. with nearly every post demonstrate that whatever it is they have converted to, it is foreign to the Catholic Faith, and whatever it is they call home, it bears no resemblance to anything I identify as home, either in past years as a Catholic, or now as a Lutheran.

The spirit types make no bones about it. I can deal with that. But these document types, the miserable wasted wretches on EWTN eg, seem to have to invest this with the notion that it is the same thing. I think this has two sources. For the converts to this new faith, it allows them to essentially graft on to their former confessions a pedigree they did not find there. For the cradle types, it allows them to insist the pedigree on which they depend is intact despite the monstrous bastard in the room.

For the former, they find a continuity they did not find before, and miss that the continuity is not with the catholic faith but their own. For the latter, they find a continuity that they a priori decided must be there, therefore it is, despite any evidence to the contrary.

In either case, faith ultimately rests in an institution and men, not Jesus, the Gospel, or his Church. Catholic is as Catholic does. Catholic is whatever the Catholic Church says it is, a position only possible when the Catholic Church is one's functional god even though it is theologised into something else.

That is why these "home to Rome" types describe something that is neither home nor Rome, more lost than Columbus who thought he was in India, and just as we call them "Indians" as a convention, we call them "Catholics" in the same way, though these "Catholics" are no more Catholic than the "Indians" are Indian. That is why my mom could cry tears at my leaving something her ancestors had died for, at the same time hanging with an institution that did in what her ancestors died for more effectively than Cromwell, the SS, the KKK, or any other organised thugs on a mission to destroy the Catholic Church.

On a related note, all this hyperventilating about the SSP et al makes no sense whatever to me. The inroads of Vatican II Catholicism into Lutheran churches constitute a clear and present danger far beyond that posed by Willow Creek, Saddleback, etc -- both offer "contemporary worship" instead of the liturgy of the catholic church, differing only in the sources sourced, as the source for the one is simply the latest change of clothes for the Whore of Babylon rather than the suburbanised casual attire of the latest version of American Protestantism, long the bane of American Lutheranism, whose former clothes apparently still strike some as Lutheran and consequently they allow Lutheranism to continue be robbed of its catholic, not Catholic, identity.

L P Cruz said...

P.E.

The inroads of Vatican II Catholicism into Lutheran churches constitute a clear and present danger far beyond that posed by Willow Creek, Saddleback, etc -- both offer "contemporary worship" instead of the liturgy of the catholic church, differing only in the sources sourced

Ahh here P.E., Dr. Ichabod will agree with you. The liberalized contemporary is not much a danger as it is already spotted it is the subtle ones that are harder to weed out and detect. That is Dr. Jackson's opinion too. I agree with you there too, absolutely. SSP though is considered not doing baby steps, but a giant leap forward.

In a lesser degree then what is happening to the Reformed is also happening to us, though still small scale:flux.

The thing though is that some make a minor a major and the major becomes the minor. In the end the Gospel gets clobbered.

Dr. Marquart said something I like us to comment on but I will extract it from an interview I heard.

LPC