The War Erupting and Expanding Within Catholicism.

shnarkle

Well-known member
At an early age I saw a need for ritual, or at the very least structure; in my life. As time passed I also saw how times change, and in some sense the church needs to be able to adapt to the world it finds itself in. The church must be able to speak the language of those in this fallen world. This is possible to do without participating in the sins of a fallen world.

I'm hoping there are some Catholics here who can provide their insights into what is currently going on within the Catholic church. Even though this is distinctively with regards to the Catholic Mass, I don't think this is just a Catholic problem. It's endemic throughout Christianity today.

The article linked below points out that it is nothing less than a war within the Catholic church, and I don't think this is hyperbole. Throughout the world today, there is a hatred for the sacred. From the earliest beginnings of the church, the "mystery of iniquity" was already evident to Paul, and I'm sure it was in no small measure, a lust for the profane and vulgar.

Here's one sentence that I found particularly confusing though, and would like to see if anyone knows what he's referring to here: "but beware of the poisoned meatballs of the servants of the Father of Lies!"

This is a well thought out and articulate argument that touches on quite a few issues, some of which I don't completely agree with, but at the same time can see an underlying theme that applies to all Christians. Who are we going to obey? Truth or lies? Do we serve Christ or ourselves? This seems to be at the crux of his argument for defending the Mass.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/hatred-for-the-mass-of-all-time-and-the-question-of-obedience

While I don't agree with the underlying claims of the Catholic Mass, I do see how the arguments presented are relevant in general to mainstream Christianity.
 

balshan

Well-known member
A
At an early age I saw a need for ritual, or at the very least structure; in my life. As time passed I also saw how times change, and in some sense the church needs to be able to adapt to the world it finds itself in. The church must be able to speak the language of those in this fallen world. This is possible to do without participating in the sins of a fallen world.

I'm hoping there are some Catholics here who can provide their insights into what is currently going on within the Catholic church. Even though this is distinctively with regards to the Catholic Mass, I don't think this is just a Catholic problem. It's endemic throughout Christianity today.

The article linked below points out that it is nothing less than a war within the Catholic church, and I don't think this is hyperbole. Throughout the world today, there is a hatred for the sacred. From the earliest beginnings of the church, the "mystery of iniquity" was already evident to Paul, and I'm sure it was in no small measure, a lust for the profane and vulgar.

Here's one sentence that I found particularly confusing though, and would like to see if anyone knows what he's referring to here: "but beware of the poisoned meatballs of the servants of the Father of Lies!"

This is a well thought out and articulate argument that touches on quite a few issues, some of which I don't completely agree with, but at the same time can see an underlying theme that applies to all Christians. Who are we going to obey? Truth or lies? Do we serve Christ or ourselves? This seems to be at the crux of his argument for defending the Mass.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/hatred-for-the-mass-of-all-time-and-the-question-of-obedience

While I don't agree with the underlying claims of the Catholic Mass, I do see how the arguments presented are relevant in general to mainstream Christianity.
Amazing that the protestants get the blame for the war. No surprise. But the war is caused by the fact that it is a false institution and it is deeper than just your rites.
Naturally, Francis is not the initiator of this war, which was begun by the modernist liturgical movement (or, if you like, with Protestantism)

The problem is there is no self reflection in the RCC at all, so they never question there flawed doctrines, teachings and actions.
 

Maxtar

Active member
At an early age I saw a need for ritual, or at the very least structure; in my life. As time passed I also saw how times change, and in some sense the church needs to be able to adapt to the world it finds itself in. The church must be able to speak the language of those in this fallen world. This is possible to do without participating in the sins of a fallen world.

I'm hoping there are some Catholics here who can provide their insights into what is currently going on within the Catholic church. Even though this is distinctively with regards to the Catholic Mass, I don't think this is just a Catholic problem. It's endemic throughout Christianity today.

The article linked below points out that it is nothing less than a war within the Catholic church, and I don't think this is hyperbole. Throughout the world today, there is a hatred for the sacred. From the earliest beginnings of the church, the "mystery of iniquity" was already evident to Paul, and I'm sure it was in no small measure, a lust for the profane and vulgar.

Here's one sentence that I found particularly confusing though, and would like to see if anyone knows what he's referring to here: "but beware of the poisoned meatballs of the servants of the Father of Lies!"

This is a well thought out and articulate argument that touches on quite a few issues, some of which I don't completely agree with, but at the same time can see an underlying theme that applies to all Christians. Who are we going to obey? Truth or lies? Do we serve Christ or ourselves? This seems to be at the crux of his argument for defending the Mass.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/hatred-for-the-mass-of-all-time-and-the-question-of-obedience

While I don't agree with the underlying claims of the Catholic Mass, I do see how the arguments presented are relevant in general to mainstream Christianity.
I think the writer is a bit hyperbolic over his claims of hatred - I don't see it. Here is one paragraph where he absolutely loses it: "It is hatred of kneeling girls wearing white veils, hatred of ladies with many children wearing black veils; hatred of men kneeling in prayer and recollection, perhaps with the rosary between their hands; hatred of priests in cassocks who are faithful to the doctrine and spirituality of all time; hatred of families that are large and peaceful despite the difficulties of this society; hatred of fidelity, of seriousness, of the thirst for the sacred".

Toward the large families there is no hatred, instead I have seen admiration that they take seriously the command to be "fruitful and multiply" and follow the Church's teaching of natural family planning. Never have I experienced any hatred towards girls as servers, women wearing veils, men kneeling in prayer etc. I think the writer is just making much of this up for attention. People actually respect one another and how they worship within the Church, be it the TLM (Traditional Latin Mass) or the post Vatican II Mass. Even with Francis's clamp down on the TLM, it still can be celebrated with the local Bishop's permission. There is no war.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
The war is almost over....Francis is the last pope....well, some say.

The prophecy of Malachy concerning the final Pope is as follows: “In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church there will reign Peter the Roman, who will feed his flock amid many tribulations, after which the seven-hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people. The End.” According to Malachy, the final Pope will take the title “Pope Peter the Roman” or a derivative thereof. According to Catholic teaching, the apostle Peter was the first Pope, and, according to Malachy, another Peter will be the final one. Got Questions
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
I think the writer is a bit hyperbolic over his claims of hatred - I don't see it. Here is one paragraph where he absolutely loses it: "It is hatred of kneeling girls wearing white veils, hatred of ladies with many children wearing black veils; hatred of men kneeling in prayer and recollection, perhaps with the rosary between their hands; hatred of priests in cassocks who are faithful to the doctrine and spirituality of all time; hatred of families that are large and peaceful despite the difficulties of this society; hatred of fidelity, of seriousness, of the thirst for the sacred".

Toward the large families there is no hatred, instead I have seen admiration that they take seriously the command to be "fruitful and multiply" and follow the Church's teaching of natural family planning. Never have I experienced any hatred towards girls as servers, women wearing veils, men kneeling in prayer etc. I think the writer is just making much of this up for attention. People actually respect one another and how they worship within the Church, be it the TLM (Traditional Latin Mass) or the post Vatican II Mass. Even with Francis's clamp down on the TLM, it still can be celebrated with the local Bishop's permission. There is no war.
I've seen people seething with hatred at pretty much anything traditional. I've also seen the traditionalists get pretty bent when their traditional Mass is disrupted with women prancing around in leotards on the alter etc. There are churches where they offer a traditional Mass and a progressive one just so there's no conflict. Same goes for Protestant denominations as well.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
At an early age I saw a need for ritual, or at the very least structure; in my life. As time passed I also saw how times change, and in some sense the church needs to be able to adapt to the world it finds itself in. The church must be able to speak the language of those in this fallen world. This is possible to do without participating in the sins of a fallen world.

I'm hoping there are some Catholics here who can provide their insights into what is currently going on within the Catholic church. Even though this is distinctively with regards to the Catholic Mass, I don't think this is just a Catholic problem. It's endemic throughout Christianity today.

The article linked below points out that it is nothing less than a war within the Catholic church, and I don't think this is hyperbole. Throughout the world today, there is a hatred for the sacred. From the earliest beginnings of the church, the "mystery of iniquity" was already evident to Paul, and I'm sure it was in no small measure, a lust for the profane and vulgar.

Here's one sentence that I found particularly confusing though, and would like to see if anyone knows what he's referring to here: "but beware of the poisoned meatballs of the servants of the Father of Lies!"

This is a well thought out and articulate argument that touches on quite a few issues, some of which I don't completely agree with, but at the same time can see an underlying theme that applies to all Christians. Who are we going to obey? Truth or lies? Do we serve Christ or ourselves? This seems to be at the crux of his argument for defending the Mass.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/hatred-for-the-mass-of-all-time-and-the-question-of-obedience

While I don't agree with the underlying claims of the Catholic Mass, I do see how the arguments presented are relevant in general to mainstream Christianity.
"Poisoned meatballs" of Satan are false doctrines made up to look like something good, so they will be easier for the gullible and uninformed to "swallow."
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
At an early age I saw a need for ritual, or at the very least structure; in my life. As time passed I also saw how times change, and in some sense the church needs to be able to adapt to the world it finds itself in. The church must be able to speak the language of those in this fallen world. This is possible to do without participating in the sins of a fallen world.

I'm hoping there are some Catholics here who can provide their insights into what is currently going on within the Catholic church. Even though this is distinctively with regards to the Catholic Mass, I don't think this is just a Catholic problem. It's endemic throughout Christianity today.

The article linked below points out that it is nothing less than a war within the Catholic church, and I don't think this is hyperbole. Throughout the world today, there is a hatred for the sacred. From the earliest beginnings of the church, the "mystery of iniquity" was already evident to Paul, and I'm sure it was in no small measure, a lust for the profane and vulgar.

Here's one sentence that I found particularly confusing though, and would like to see if anyone knows what he's referring to here: "but beware of the poisoned meatballs of the servants of the Father of Lies!"

This is a well thought out and articulate argument that touches on quite a few issues, some of which I don't completely agree with, but at the same time can see an underlying theme that applies to all Christians. Who are we going to obey? Truth or lies? Do we serve Christ or ourselves? This seems to be at the crux of his argument for defending the Mass.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/hatred-for-the-mass-of-all-time-and-the-question-of-obedience

While I don't agree with the underlying claims of the Catholic Mass, I do see how the arguments presented are relevant in general to mainstream Christianity.
This is nothing more than opinion from a Catholic. I am not claiming this is anything other than opinion. Take it for what it is worth.

Within Catholicism you have two extremes: you have the far left and the far right. The far right and the far left are equally as bad. I say this---even though I would probably agree more than I would disagree with those on the far right about Pope Francis, the direction of the Church since Vatican II and a whole host of other issues about the problems in the Church.

Those on the far left tend to think of the Church as nothing more than a not for profit charitable outreach--albeit divine. They think the Church should be more secular and more Protestant. They think Vatican II was supposed to break from the past and utterly secularize the Church and Protestantize the Church. They tend to reject the authority of the Bible and the authority of the Church, especially as it comes to moral teaching. However, after rejecting the authority of the Bible and the authority of the Church when it comes to moral teaching, they appeal to the very same authority they just rejected when it comes to social issues---and apparently do not see the contradiction.

Those on the far right also see Vatican II as a break from the past but not for the same reasons as those on the far left. Those on the far right tend to conflate the external trappings of Catholicism with Catholicism. Hence, modern churches without plenty of stained glass and statuary are seen as "Protestant." The Mass of Vatican II is likewise "Protestant" because---reasons. Those on the far right for whatever reason tend to see Catholicism as it existed in the 1950's as a golden era. They believe the era is a bench mark, a gold standard, the measure by which all Catholicism should be judged. They tend to think that the Tridentine form of the Mass is the superior form of the Mass--and in fact the only form the Mass should take. The Tridentine Mass certainly had its place and it had its strengthens. However, what the Catholics on the far right fail to understand is that while Jesus instituted the Sacraments, the form the Sacramental celebrations take can change and adapt over time as the need arises.

Now we get to my point: the problem with those on the far right--at least from the perspective of Pope Francis is that they are creating division. It isn't enough for them to live and let live. In other words--they do not see their brand or style of Catholicism as a simple matter of taste. They do not see it as though--"Hey, you know, we like the Old Mass and the old trappings of Catholicism. Thus, we like to go to churches where these things are offered. But we get that not everyone is into this. That is fine. To each his or her own." No; they see their brand of Catholicism as the true expression of Catholicism and they see anyone who does not share their tastes as morally inferior----almost on a par with the likes of Joe Biden. This is why Pope Francis has reacted in the way he did.

Now, I think Pope Francis has over-reacted and created a bigger problem. However, I am just trying to explain why, from my perspective, Pope Francis did as he did.
 
Last edited:

shnarkle

Well-known member
This is nothing more than opinion from a Catholic. I am not claiming this is anything other than opinion. Take it for what it is worth.
HIs empirical evidence matches what I've seen. Barring my disagreement with the doctrines of the Eucharist, his arguments are sound.
Within Catholicism you have two extremes: you have the far left and the far right. The far right and the far left are equally as bad. I say this---even though I would probably agree more than I would disagree with those on the far right about Pope Francis, the direction of the Church since Vatican II and a whole host of other issues about the problems in the Church.

Those on the far left tend to think of the Church as nothing more than a not for profit charitable outreach--albeit divine. They think the Church should be more secular and more Protestant. They think Vatican II was supposed to break from the past and utterly secularize the Church and Protestantize the Church. They tend to reject the authority of the Bible and the authority of the Church, especially as it comes to moral teaching. However, after rejecting the authority of the Bible and the authority of the Church when it comes to moral teaching, they appeal to the very same authority they just rejected when it comes to social issues---and apparently do not see the contradiction.
I've spent a few years with some of these Catholics on the left reading their literature, and they do not rely upon the bible or Catholic doctrine at all. In fact, they reject it almost completely. I've got a list of authors somewhere. I'll see if I can find it. Half of them aren't even Catholic.
Those on the far right for whatever reason tend to see Catholicism as it existed in the 1950's as a golden era.
When you say "for whatever reason" are you saying this because it doesn't matter what their reasons are, or because you don't know what their reasons are?
what the Catholics on the far right fail to understand is that while Jesus instituted the Sacraments, the form the Sacramental celebrations take can change and adapt over time as the need arises.

Could you give some examples of what you're referring to? I'm particularly interested in how far the sacraments Jesus instituted can change through necessity before they become something completely different.
Now we get to my point: the problem with those on the far right--at least from the perspective of Pope Francis is that they are creating division. It isn't enough for them to live and let live. In other words--they do not see their brand or style of Catholicism as a simple matter of taste. They do not see it as though--"Hey, you know, we like the Old Mass and the old trappings of Catholicism. Thus, we like to go to churches where these things are offered. But we get that not everyone is into this. That is fine. To each his or her own." No; they see their brand of Catholicism as the true expression of Catholicism and they see anyone who does not share their tastes as morally inferior----almost on a par with the likes of Joe Biden. This is why Pope Francis has reacted in the way he did.
Thanks for sharing that. It would appear that you've taken the left leaning position, no?

Perhaps you could elaborate on how the left isn't creating division by refuting the points presented in linked article. Ultimately, I don't have a dog in this fight, so I haven't really taken sides. I don't see how one side is innocent in this. It takes two to tango, and they both seem to be trying to lead.
Now, I think Pope Francis has over-reacted and created a bigger problem. However, I am just trying to explain why, from my perspective, Pope Francis did as he did.
Thanks, but I seem to have missed your reasons why he created a much bigger problem.
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
While I don't agree with the underlying claims of the Catholic Mass, I do see how the arguments presented are relevant in general to mainstream Christianity.
I agree with you. It is one thing to disagree with the accrued errors of the Roman Catholic church and it is another to disagree with those who seek to stamp out anything that isn't a particular form of man worship.

The basic theme of the article is a world wide phenomena that affects all people who are not outright devil worshippers. It is a hatred that is fueling the attempted destruction of Christian culture regardless of how well or poorly that culture represents the faith.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
But they keep telling us how united they are.
And you keep failing to understand the point Catholics are making about the need for an authoritative church.

An infallible Church cannot impose unity and Catholics never maintained that it could. An infallible Church takes away the JUSTIFICATION for disunity.

So for example--the Nuns on the Bus can run around and dissent from Church teaching; there is no justification for that. In Protestantism there is no mechanism for the definitive settling of disputes. There is always justification for dissent.
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
And you keep failing to understand the point Catholics are making about the need for an authoritative church.

An infallible Church cannot impose unity and Catholics never maintained that it could. An infallible Church takes away the JUSTIFICATION for disunity.
There is no justification for telling the lie of an infallible church when the redeemed are imperfect and divisions must come to show who is approved. Christians are united in Him rather than apart from Him.
So for example--the Nuns on the Bus can run around and dissent from Church teaching; there is no justification for that. In Protestantism there is no mechanism for the definitive settling of disputes. There is always justification for dissent.
The Lord will handle the matter because at best those erring are His servants and at worst those erring who are not His servants will receive what they have earned.

'If we say we have no sin then we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us, but if we confess our sins then He is faithful and just to forgive us our sons and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:8-9

The word is a lamp into our feet.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
There is no justification for telling the lie of an infallible church when the redeemed are imperfect and divisions must come to show who is approved. Christians are united in Him rather than apart from Him.

The Lord will handle the matter because at best those erring are His servants and at worst those erring who are not His servants will receive what they have earned.

'If we say we have no sin then we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us, but if we confess our sins then He is faithful and just to forgive us our sons and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:8-9

The word is a lamp into our feet.

I love how you minimize and or outright deny the complete disaster that Sola Scriptura is within the Protestant sects.

This isn't just about polite and respectful disagreements about how to decorate a church, what color the paint or carpet should be, whether to get an electronic organ or a pipe organ. Protestants disagree on matters of doctrine itself--and those matters are not unimportant.

For example--if double predestination is true, if the hard core five point Calvinists are correct---then there isn't much point to evangelization. Is infant baptism biblical? Is it necessary? Is baptism a means of grace? What is the nature of the Eucharist? These are all important questions----and Protestants have no unified answer to these questions. What the Protestants do---is just split and form a new sect and do it their way. That is how they answer questions. The Word indeed is a lamp unto our feet. What happens when Protestants disagree on what the Word means? How can the Word guide our path when Protestants cannot agree on what it means?

I can understand why you, like most Protestants just want to dismiss such questions as irrelevant and unimportant; but that does not make them irrelevant and unimportant---try as you might to want to believe that. Truth matters.
 

mica

Well-known member
I love how you minimize and or outright deny the complete disaster that Sola Scriptura is within the Protestant sects.

This isn't just about polite and respectful disagreements about how to decorate a church, what color the paint or carpet should be, whether to get an electronic organ or a pipe organ. Protestants disagree on matters of doctrine itself--and those matters are not unimportant.

For example--if double predestination is true, if the hard core five point Calvinists are correct---then there isn't much point to evangelization. Is infant baptism biblical? Is it necessary? Is baptism a means of grace? What is the nature of the Eucharist? These are all important questions----and Protestants have no unified answer to these questions. What the Protestants do---is just split and form a new sect and do it their way. That is how they answer questions. The Word indeed is a lamp unto our feet. What happens when Protestants disagree on what the Word means? How can the Word guide our path when Protestants cannot agree on what it means?

I can understand why you, like most Protestants just want to dismiss such questions as irrelevant and unimportant; but that does not make them irrelevant and unimportant---try as you might to want to believe that. Truth matters.
Truth matters.
His truth matters. Catholics don't know His truth, your post supports that.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
His truth matters. Catholics don't know His truth, your post supports that.
Of course "His Truth" matters.

We both agree on that.

But---where is "His Truth" found? Who is teaching "HIs Truth?" How do we know? When Protestant sects have no unity or no agreement on exact what "His Truth" is, what is His Truth?

Did the Baptists get it right? Which sect? How about the Lutherans? If the Lutherans, which sect? Maybe they both got it wrong and the Presbyterians got it right. But if the Presbyterians have it right, which sect of Presbyterian? Then again, maybe none of them know what they are talking about and the Mennonites got it right. Or does the Assemblies of God have it right? On and one it goes.

Again, I can understand why you would want to treat these questions as irrelevant or unimportant. If you actually took them seriously, you might have to challenge your presuppositions.
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
I love how you minimize and or outright deny the complete disaster that Sola Scriptura is within the Protestant sects.

This isn't just about polite and respectful disagreements about how to decorate a church, what color the paint or carpet should be, whether to get an electronic organ or a pipe organ. Protestants disagree on matters of doctrine itself--and those matters are not unimportant.
I don't recall anyone ever saying they did. The numerous sects or denominations in the former Romans Empire are initially the product of war, the kind where people kill and are killed for years on end. They are not a product of a let's agree to disagree mentality or a doctrine isn't important stance.
For example--if double predestination is true, if the hard core five point Calvinists are correct---then there isn't much point to evangelization. Is infant baptism biblical? Is it necessary? Is baptism a means of grace? What is the nature of the Eucharist? These are all important questions----and Protestants have no unified answer to these questions.
The historical Protestants, those at the Diet of Speyer, agreed and still agree, at least formally. There was even a formal peace in which the Evangelical Church was formally recognized as an expression of the one Christian faith.

Trent back peddled on that by the Papal choice to lump all possible beliefs that were not expressed according to the peculiar Papal manner and then anathematizing those beliefs. That decision led to the redefinition by some of Protestant in a catch all manner.
What the Protestants do---is just split and form a new sect and do it their way. That is how they answer questions. The Word indeed is a lamp unto our feet. What happens when Protestants disagree on what the Word means? How can the Word guide our path when Protestants cannot agree on what it means?
See above.
I can understand why you, like most Protestants just want to dismiss such questions as irrelevant and unimportant; but that does not make them irrelevant and unimportant---try as you might to want to believe that. Truth matters.
At the end of the day what matters is that Jesus is the Savior of all men and His propitiation is set forth to be received through faith rather than a theology test or some other man centered work.

Everyone has historically agreed that God's word is a lamp unto our feet. The Lord knows it is as surely as He knows who are His.
 

mica

Well-known member
mica said:
His truth matters. Catholics don't know His truth, your post supports that.
Of course "His Truth" matters.

We both agree on that.
yes, His truth does matter. It doesn't matter to catholics, they believe what the RCC teaches is His truth. It isn't.

But---where is "His Truth" found? Who is teaching "HIs Truth?"
If you don't know those answers, that explains why you don't know His truth.

His truth
is found in His word - scripture. It is taught by men chosen by Him specifically to do that and inspired by the Holy Spirit.

How do we know? When Protestant sects have no unity or no agreement on exact what "His Truth" is, what is His Truth?
We know when He changes our heart and we believe Him, not men.

Did the Baptists get it right? Which sect? How about the Lutherans? If the Lutherans, which sect? Maybe they both got it wrong and the Presbyterians got it right. But if the Presbyterians have it right, which sect of Presbyterian? Then again, maybe none of them know what they are talking about and the Mennonites got it right. Or does the Assemblies of God have it right? On and one it goes.
on and on goes you...

Again, I can understand why you would want to treat these questions as irrelevant or unimportant. If you actually took them seriously, you might have to challenge your presuppositions.
catholics treat God's word as irrelevant and unimportant. so challenge your own presuppositions.
 
Top