Sunday, August 12, 2007
We Have a Valid Cause!
In the 19th Sunday Ord. Time publication of NEWBEC (New Way of Being Church), Fr. Aloysius Mowe SJ writes, "A nostalgic longing for the marks of an imgined glorious past, for example, whether it be the Latin language, of the 'smells and bells' of the Baroque liturgy, is nothing but a manifestation of a lack of faith".
K.I.S.S. (Keeping it short and simple)
- Catholics who embrace the traditions of the Church are not doing so out of nostalgia. We embrace tradition because WE ARE PROUD OF TRADITION.
- We know that the Church wasn't perfect before the council; there was laxity in catechisis, the understanding of what the Mass really was was deteriorating, and Catholicism was more of a religion than a relationship with Jesus Christ, etc... We are not "imaginging a glorious past". We believe that education and orthodoxy is the solution to those problems and that of today's.
- Latin. Click here.
- Any orthodox Catholic would know that the Holy Sacrifice of the Roman Catholic Mass is one of the major battlegrounds in the war against the principalities of Hell. With heresy everywhere and with orthodoxy being purged and persecuted, anyone striving for holiness in this secularized world will definately feel some sense of militancy. We are not trying to fight for identity, we are fighting for liturgical and doctrinal sanity.
- How can non-believers identify the Son of Man in the Church- the Sacrament of God's love- when so many Catholics themselves cannot seem to identify the birth, life, passion, death and resurrection of Jesus in the Mass?
- Lack of faith? Harsh words, Fr. Mowe... Catholics who long for the traditional Mass are sharing the same faith as that of countless Saints who were sanctified by the "bells and smells of the Baroque liturgy"; their service to God's people was the natural biproduct of that form of sanctity.
Labels: Latin, Liturgy, Reply, Thoughts, Traditionalism
Saturday, July 14, 2007
One, Holy, Catholic, & Apostolic Church
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS
OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH
RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS
OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH
INTRODUCTION
The Second Vatican Council, with its Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, and its Decrees on Ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio) and the Oriental Churches (Orientalium Ecclesiarum), has contributed in a decisive way to the renewal of Catholic ecclesiology. The Supreme Pontiffs have also contributed to this renewal by offering their own insights and orientations for praxis: Paul VI in his Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam suam (1964) and John Paul II in his Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint (1995).
The consequent duty of theologians to expound with greater clarity the diverse aspects of ecclesiology has resulted in a flowering of writing in this field. In fact it has become evident that this theme is a most fruitful one which, however, has also at times required clarification by way of precise definition and correction, for instance in the declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), the Letter addressed to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Communionis notio (1992), and the declaration Dominus Iesus (2000), all published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
The vastness of the subject matter and the novelty of many of the themes involved continue to provoke theological reflection. Among the many new contributions to the field, some are not immune from erroneous interpretation which in turn give rise to confusion and doubt. A number of these interpretations have been referred to the attention of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Given the universality of Catholic doctrine on the Church, the Congregation wishes to respond to these questions by clarifying the authentic meaning of some ecclesiological expressions used by the magisterium which are open to misunderstanding in the theological debate.
RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS
FIRST QUESTION
Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?
RESPONSE
The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.
This was exactly what John XXIII said at the beginning of the Council.[1] Paul VI affirmed it[2] and commented in the act of promulgating the Constitution Lumen gentium: “There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation”.[3] The Bishops repeatedly expressed and fulfilled this intention.[4]
SECOND QUESTION
What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?
RESPONSE
Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”[5], that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.[6] “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”.[7]
In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church[8], in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.
It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.[9] Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.[10]
THIRD QUESTION
Why was the expression “subsists in” adopted instead of the simple word “is”?
RESPONSE
The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are “numerous elements of sanctification and of truth” which are found outside her structure, but which “as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity”.[11]
“It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church”[12].
FOURTH QUESTION
Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term “Church” in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church?
RESPONSE
The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term. “Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds”[13], they merit the title of “particular or local Churches”[14], and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches.[15]
“It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature”.[16] However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches.[17]
On the other hand, because of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, is not fully realised in history.[18]
FIFTH QUESTION
Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?
RESPONSE
According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense[20].
The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ratified and confirmed these Responses, adopted in the Plenary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 2007, the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.
William Cardinal Levada
Prefect
Angelo Amato, S.D.B.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary
Labels: Catholic Belief, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Holy Father, Protestants, Reply, Second Vatican Council, Vatican
Friday, April 27, 2007
Truth and Tolerance
Someone left a comment on my post 'The role of a lay person: to imbue society with Catholic Christian values'. In the comment, I was directed to a website that condemned homosexual people. Firstly, I must apologise if the impression I gave to my readers indicated a hatred for homosexuals or impressed upon the reader that I was homophobic.
All of us know that suicide is the number one cause of death among gay-identified youth. Some researchers report that as many as a third of all gay-identified youth has attempted to take their life. Why are gay-identified teens taking (or contemplating) taking their life? The answer is simple. Bigotry.
"Love one another as I have love you"
We should work as hard as anyone to put an end to bigotry. As Christians we need to love homosexuals. Though we definately do not condone homosexual behavior, we need to be encouraged to get out of our comfort zones and love the person behind the issue and to walk alongside those who are on the long, hard road to freedom.
No one can discount the truth that there is freedom from homosexuality in Christ! Scientific and social research have shown that same-sex attraction is not genetic. Therefore, it does not have to dictate the course of one’s life.
All of us know that suicide is the number one cause of death among gay-identified youth. Some researchers report that as many as a third of all gay-identified youth has attempted to take their life. Why are gay-identified teens taking (or contemplating) taking their life? The answer is simple. Bigotry.
"Love one another as I have love you"
We should work as hard as anyone to put an end to bigotry. As Christians we need to love homosexuals. Though we definately do not condone homosexual behavior, we need to be encouraged to get out of our comfort zones and love the person behind the issue and to walk alongside those who are on the long, hard road to freedom.
No one can discount the truth that there is freedom from homosexuality in Christ! Scientific and social research have shown that same-sex attraction is not genetic. Therefore, it does not have to dictate the course of one’s life.
Many gay-identified Catholics have left the Church (altogether) because they feel that both God and Church has disowned them due to their orientation. This is not true. They leave because of the comments and remarks of certain members of the congregation that makes them feel left out and disowned.
Such attitudes must change!
As representatives of Christ, it is our duty to stand up for those who are hated and judged. This does not involve condoning sin, as Jesus demonstrated by saying to the woman caught in adultery, “Neither do I condemn you. Go now and leave your life of sin.” (St. John 8:11). But first, He chased away those who accused her in their self-righteousness. We can change lives with the grace Jesus exemplified.
We don’t do this by redefining marriage, we do it by being a friend to the lonely and sticking up for the bullied. We don’t silence the truth, but speak the truth even when lies are more popular. We don’t do this by offering false hope in sexual permissiveness; we do it by sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ and facilitating the healing that is not only possible, but promised.
The most important thing is not to condemn!
It's hard to understand why someone we care about would live a lifestyle you don't agree with, but the best thing we can do when we have a friend who's struggling with sexual sin is PRAY! Continue to care. We need to remember we don't have to agree with him/her to love him/her with God's love. The Bible reminds us in Romans 3:23 that, "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."All. As in you, and I too.
As Catholic Christians, it's our responsibility to share the truth in love. We're called to be ambassadors for Christ- not lawyers. We shouldn't feel as though we have to argue with someone until we're blue in the face, rather, we should simply let our lives be the example of Christ. Only then, everything we say or do will prove our faith and radiate God's love to anyone in need.
In society today, there are forces trying to disintegrate the meaning of family and indoctrinate younger and younger schoolchildren with sexual confusion. We offer this and all other intentions to our Blessed Mother- Virgin Most Pure- trusting in her maternal intercession. Hail Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of your womb Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
Labels: Catholic Belief, Homosexuality, Reply, Thoughts
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Open Letter: The Love of God
Dear Naliakbar, I'm a Catholic (I do not hold certain views of Islam which the Protestants have) and I hope we can have an open discussion on the matters of religion; my only intention is to know and understand more. There are so many similariteies which we share as "people of the book". We believe in monoaestic faith, God is a transcendent creator, sovereign, ominpotent, spoke (and continues to speak) to humanity through prophets, angels, written word, knows our intimate thoughts, the wicked will be judged.
Having said all this, my issue with Islam is the concept of the love of God/Allah.
Having said all this, my issue with Islam is the concept of the love of God/Allah.
In Chrisitanity, God, the Father, provided a sinless savior- Jesus Christ- who took our sins upon himself & bore God's wrath in our place.(Mt20:28,26:28,Lk22:37,Jhn3:16,10:9-11,2Cor5:21,Gal3:13,1The5:9-10) whereas in Islam, Allah provided a messenger- Muhd (P.B.U.H.)- who warned of Allah's impending judgement(Surah2:119,5:19,7:184,188,15:89-90). Through the death & ressurection of Christ, there is no condemnation; hence the love of God is shown and perpetuated. Thus, there isn't a need to weigh good deeds against bad deeds (Surah 7:8-9, 21:47).
Also, on love, Catholics- as many other Christians- believe that God does not take any pleasure in the death of the wicked (Eze 18:23) & is "not wanting anyone to perish but come back to repentance" (2Pet3:9), however in the Koran (Surah 5:49,Ali;Surah4:168-169,7:179,9:2,40:10), we see that Allah desires to afflict man for some of their sins. Perhaps you could explain this part as Catholics do have some understanding regarding this matter where souls are sent to purgatory. Does "afflict them for their sins" imply purgatory or damnation?
Still on love, Allah "loves not the prodigals" (Surah3:140) & neither does he love "him who is treacherous or sinful" (Surah4:107;Ali). This is entirely different from the Christian doctrine where god demonstrates His love for us in this: while we were sinners, Christ died for us- our sins (Rom5:8), also looking at the Parable in the Gospel of the prodigal son who returned to the father was warmly welcomed.
Now, there seems to be some contridiction since the Koran says that the God of Islam is the God of the Christians and Jews (Surah 29:46). How can this be when Allah is impersonal and unitarian (Surah4:48) whereas the Christian scriptures reveal God as personal (1Pet5:6-7) and Trinitarian (2Cor13:14)? Also, how can God/Allah be changeble or capricious (Surah 2:284)? Finally, how can the God of the Muslims be the God of the Christians when no where is Allah ever presented as the God of love; not being a loving God is contrary to the very essence and nature of God (1Jhn4:7-16).
Thank you for you time, please correct me if I've wrongly quoted the Koran or if I've misinterpretated it. Otherwise, I hope you can provide your view(s). Anywhere where a harsh or rude tone of language is sensed is not intended.
Before, I go, what are your opinions on this: The Catechism of the Catholic Church 841 regarding the Catholic Church's relationship with the Muslims: "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
Hope to hear from you soon.
In the God of Abraham,
Paul M.
Labels: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Catholic Belief, Discussions, Muslims, Open Letter, Reply
Tuesday, January 2, 2007
Comment Policy
After receiving comments like this one, I've decided to draw up a comment policy.
Although I strongly encourage all my readers to comment- as I love to hear different opinion(s)/viewpoint(s)-, please take note that I reserve the right to delete any comment(s) that I deem to be inappropriate/unacceptable.
Examples of unacceptable comments include (but are not limited to):
Although I strongly encourage all my readers to comment- as I love to hear different opinion(s)/viewpoint(s)-, please take note that I reserve the right to delete any comment(s) that I deem to be inappropriate/unacceptable.
Examples of unacceptable comments include (but are not limited to):
- Attacking the good name or reputation of anyperson(s)/Organization(s), as by publishing maliciously or falsely anything injurious; slander or libel. Anyperson(s) refers to the following parties: the author of the blog, other commentors, priests/religious and the Holy Father- Pope Benedict XVI. Organization(s) refers to the Holy Roman Catholic Church, her Prelates, Orders, etc...
- Denial/rejection of the existence of God, and the (God-given) Authority and Supremacy of the One, Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church
- Mocking/Insulting/Blaspheming against Our Lord, Our Lady, and the Saints
- Posting of obscene/impure images in your comments; includes your blogger avatar (display picture). Obscene/impure images refers to nudity, desecrated images of Our Lord, Our Lady, the Saints, the Holy Father, priests/religious, churches.
- Links to websites, videos, webpage that that author deems inappropriate/unacceptable.
- Reference to the Councils of the Roman Catholic Catholic as evil or passing condemnatio(s). Councils refers to: 1st Council of Nicaea, Constantinople One, Council of Ephesus, Council of Chalcedon, Constantinople Two, Constantinople Three, 2nd Council of Nicaea, Constantinople Four, Lateran One, Lateran Two, Lateran Three, Lateran Four, 1st Council of Lyons, 2nd Council of Lyons, Council of Vienne, Council of Constance, Council of Florence, Lateran Five, Council of Trent, First Vatican Council, Second Vatican Council
- Referernce to the Novus Ordo Mass as evil or passing condemnation(s).
Note: Subject to change without prior notice
Labels: Announcements, Reply
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Submission to God
RE: Comment by reader on OPEN LETTER: Will Pending Indult Split The Church
First, I would like to thank you for leaving a comment. I think the issue here is that our understanding of Obedience may differ. I do not say that yours is wrong and that mine is right. I'll just give my opinion and let the rest of the readers make their decision.
We need to submit ourselves to God before doing likewise to any civil leadership, although we still need to acknowledge that just and righteous instruction does come from God and deserves our allegiance as long as that leadership is moral in its requests. Obedience to authority is what makes a nation civilized. If there were no laws in set in place by a legitimate authority, any country would be in chaos.
Listening to God and the consequences of not following His instructions are shown quite clearly throughout scripture. Adam and Eve lost their right to live in Eden because they failed the test in following God's instructions.
In the Gospel, Jesus tells us, "Render to Ceaser what is his and to God what belongs to God."
So what is true obedience?
According to the great theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas, true obedience is a balance between twin errors of defect and excess, which are disobedience and false obedience. Today this second error is common among Catholics who, when they follow orders to depart from Tradition, think they are being obedient. As Catholics our obedience is always found within tradition.
It has always been the teaching of the Church that obedience is part of justice, one of the four cardinal virtues. We must remember that the Cardinal virtues are subordinate to the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity. Faith is therefore greater than obedience!
So if obedience acts to harm the faith, then a good Catholic has a duty not to obey his superior. I hope up to here I answered you question on 'disobedience' to the local ordinary.
St. Paul. In the introduction of his letter to the Galations, he states clearly that "but though we , or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema" (1:8). Also, great theologian Saint Thomas Aquinas has this to say, "now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God, therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things." (Summa Theoligica II-IIQ. 104). But many Catholics, forgetting that Catholic obedience is relative to the Faith and Tradition, think obedience is an absolute, with only one opposite, disobedience.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre said that, "Satan's masterstroke is to have succeeded in sowing disobedience to all Traditon through obedience (ie. false obedience)." Well, some readers might say that this quote should not be regarded at all since it comes from the SSPX's founder. Reject it by all means.
But remember, Pope Leo XIII in Diuturnum Illud states, "And there is no reason why those who obey God rather than men should be accused of refusing obedience; for if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, these rulers exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice, nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null."
And how about Sacred Scripture? The Book of the Acts of the Apostles tells us that "we ought to obey God... rather than men" (5:29) and St. Paul in Galations rebuked the Galations saying, "O senseless Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that you should not obey the truth...... who hath hindered you, that you should not obey the truth?" (3:1, 5:7).
Like I mentioned in my Open Letter, it is not those who are keeping tradition that are causing disunity but rather those who oppose it. It is the modernists who are causing anarchy and confusion by disobeying sacred traditions. CATHOLIC OBEDIENCE MUST ALWAYS BE TO THE FAITH.
Don't forget that our first Pope, St. Peter was publiclly rebuked by St. Paul when there was close danger to the Faith. And so as it was in St. Peter's day, so must it be today where "all disciplinary authority, all obedience to a bishop presupposes the pure teaching of the Holy Church. Obedience to the bishop is grounded in complete faith in the teaching of the Holy Church. As soon as the ecclesiastical authority yields to pluralism in questions of faith, it has lost the right to claim obedience to its disciplinary ordinances." (Professor Dietrich von Hildebrand, The Devasted Vineyard, 1973, pp 3-5).
First, I would like to thank you for leaving a comment. I think the issue here is that our understanding of Obedience may differ. I do not say that yours is wrong and that mine is right. I'll just give my opinion and let the rest of the readers make their decision.
We need to submit ourselves to God before doing likewise to any civil leadership, although we still need to acknowledge that just and righteous instruction does come from God and deserves our allegiance as long as that leadership is moral in its requests. Obedience to authority is what makes a nation civilized. If there were no laws in set in place by a legitimate authority, any country would be in chaos.
Listening to God and the consequences of not following His instructions are shown quite clearly throughout scripture. Adam and Eve lost their right to live in Eden because they failed the test in following God's instructions.
In the Gospel, Jesus tells us, "Render to Ceaser what is his and to God what belongs to God."
So what is true obedience?
According to the great theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas, true obedience is a balance between twin errors of defect and excess, which are disobedience and false obedience. Today this second error is common among Catholics who, when they follow orders to depart from Tradition, think they are being obedient. As Catholics our obedience is always found within tradition.
It has always been the teaching of the Church that obedience is part of justice, one of the four cardinal virtues. We must remember that the Cardinal virtues are subordinate to the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity. Faith is therefore greater than obedience!
So if obedience acts to harm the faith, then a good Catholic has a duty not to obey his superior. I hope up to here I answered you question on 'disobedience' to the local ordinary.
St. Paul. In the introduction of his letter to the Galations, he states clearly that "but though we , or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema" (1:8). Also, great theologian Saint Thomas Aquinas has this to say, "now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God, therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things." (Summa Theoligica II-IIQ. 104). But many Catholics, forgetting that Catholic obedience is relative to the Faith and Tradition, think obedience is an absolute, with only one opposite, disobedience.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre said that, "Satan's masterstroke is to have succeeded in sowing disobedience to all Traditon through obedience (ie. false obedience)." Well, some readers might say that this quote should not be regarded at all since it comes from the SSPX's founder. Reject it by all means.
But remember, Pope Leo XIII in Diuturnum Illud states, "And there is no reason why those who obey God rather than men should be accused of refusing obedience; for if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, these rulers exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice, nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null."
And how about Sacred Scripture? The Book of the Acts of the Apostles tells us that "we ought to obey God... rather than men" (5:29) and St. Paul in Galations rebuked the Galations saying, "O senseless Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that you should not obey the truth...... who hath hindered you, that you should not obey the truth?" (3:1, 5:7).
Like I mentioned in my Open Letter, it is not those who are keeping tradition that are causing disunity but rather those who oppose it. It is the modernists who are causing anarchy and confusion by disobeying sacred traditions. CATHOLIC OBEDIENCE MUST ALWAYS BE TO THE FAITH.
Don't forget that our first Pope, St. Peter was publiclly rebuked by St. Paul when there was close danger to the Faith. And so as it was in St. Peter's day, so must it be today where "all disciplinary authority, all obedience to a bishop presupposes the pure teaching of the Holy Church. Obedience to the bishop is grounded in complete faith in the teaching of the Holy Church. As soon as the ecclesiastical authority yields to pluralism in questions of faith, it has lost the right to claim obedience to its disciplinary ordinances." (Professor Dietrich von Hildebrand, The Devasted Vineyard, 1973, pp 3-5).
I also want to say breifly, that because of this, I have nothing against the Society of St. Pius X and their mission even though I am not a member or that I agree with everything that they do. My personal experiences with their clergy's orthodoxy, charity and love for Jesus Christ throught the sacred liturgy only serves to strenghten this belief.
Labels: Reply, Thoughts, Traditionalism
OPEN LETTER: The Divine Sower Commands Good Soil
In am writing this in response to Mr. Manuel Sacramento's online letter to the Catholic News (Wednesday, October 25th, 2006 at 6:37 am).
Though, I agree with him that "the Catholic Church needs more laborers in these crucial times". I do not agree with the way that he explains we should go about doing it; perhaps, he didn't read the first article on this topic, 'Importance of joining seminary for those discerning vocation to priesthood'.
The approach that Mr. Sacramento suggests is "to allow discernment while being in the world". This is not parallel to the teaching of the Council of Trent on Seminaries, 23rd Session. The holy council affirms that “unless young people are well educated, they can be easily be led astray towards the pleasures of the world.” Please be reminded that that declaration of the Council was made on the 15th July 1563. The "pleasures" that faced young Catholics back then, could not possibly be greater than that of today's. If that had to be the approach then, I don't see why not know.
The Council continues, “Also, unless they are trained in religion at the tenderest age, when the vicious habits have not entirely taken hold of them, it is impossible for them to persevere in a perfect fashion in Church discipline without great and special protection from Almighty God.” Look at all the abuses that are occurring now in the universal Church, one cannot help but be disgusted. It seems that the Council has already forewarned of this and has already provided a clear solution.
We have to remember that what the Church needs are not more theologians but priests after the heart of Jesus, holy, simple men who are willing to put their lives before others like the first martys, to care for souls and bring them back to God. To offer the spotless and immaculate victim on the Altar of Sacrifice.
To leave a soul to discern in the temptations of the world may no doubt strengthen the aspirant, but it will also cause many others to be lured to the pleasures of life. The world is not the place to test a vocation, my first letter that quoted author and Jesuit , Rev. Fr. William Doyle makes it dangerously clear,
There is a saying, by the fruits you can tell. The past 30 to 40 years have shown clearly that Mr. Sacramento's proposed method (no doubt noble in theory) is not bearing fruit?
Jesus in one of His parables tells us that only the seed that is planted in good soil would flourish and grow. Why then not plant the seeds in good soil as commanded by the divine sower?
God puts into the heart a coal.
It is up to those in authority to ensure it glows.
The external elements not only put out the glow,
it also destroys the coal.
In REPLY TO:
Church needs priests and religious of quality, not only quantity (Oct 25). I refer to the article written by Rose Loh in the October 29, 2006 issue of CN.
I most definitely agree that the Catholic Church needs more laborers in these crucial times. Indeed, temptations abound in our society today. But the urgent need for priests and religious is not only in terms of quantity, but also, of quality. By this I do not mean that opening the seminary to boys at an earlier stage of vocational discernment leads to ‘lower quality’ priests. But it certainly helps in the formation process of the future leaders of the Church that they fully understand the context in which our faith stands today. Certainly, faith does not grow in a vacuum, i.e., solely in the silent confines of the seminary. Precisely, Jesus calls us to be witnesses of His love and be engaged in the world. I see this as a motivation for the Church to allow discernment while being in the world.
We must remember that Jesus, Himself, was tempted by the devil ¬ not once, but thrice. It is precisely in knowing the enemy that we are able to fully prepare and equip ourselves to overcome temptation and sin. The complexity of the world today, brought by materialism and secular ideas, all the more are an imperative for pastors and shepherds who can handle the equally complex needs of the Church and its members. How can priests serve as good counsels and examples without the exposure to the real world? God is in and with the world. As the Letter of St. Paul to the Ephesians (5:8) instructs as to be Lux in Domino, or Light in the World, we must BE that light. As such, advising those who are hearing the call of religious life to continuously discern while being engaged in reality is not and must not be equated with the Church driving the laborers away. Rather, it is an open invitation to perseveringly choose God more and more as we live our daily lives, and consequently and freely reject evil in all its forms.
Manuel Ricardo Sacramento
Singapore 120330
Though, I agree with him that "the Catholic Church needs more laborers in these crucial times". I do not agree with the way that he explains we should go about doing it; perhaps, he didn't read the first article on this topic, 'Importance of joining seminary for those discerning vocation to priesthood'.
The approach that Mr. Sacramento suggests is "to allow discernment while being in the world". This is not parallel to the teaching of the Council of Trent on Seminaries, 23rd Session. The holy council affirms that “unless young people are well educated, they can be easily be led astray towards the pleasures of the world.” Please be reminded that that declaration of the Council was made on the 15th July 1563. The "pleasures" that faced young Catholics back then, could not possibly be greater than that of today's. If that had to be the approach then, I don't see why not know.
The Council continues, “Also, unless they are trained in religion at the tenderest age, when the vicious habits have not entirely taken hold of them, it is impossible for them to persevere in a perfect fashion in Church discipline without great and special protection from Almighty God.” Look at all the abuses that are occurring now in the universal Church, one cannot help but be disgusted. It seems that the Council has already forewarned of this and has already provided a clear solution.
We have to remember that what the Church needs are not more theologians but priests after the heart of Jesus, holy, simple men who are willing to put their lives before others like the first martys, to care for souls and bring them back to God. To offer the spotless and immaculate victim on the Altar of Sacrifice.
To leave a soul to discern in the temptations of the world may no doubt strengthen the aspirant, but it will also cause many others to be lured to the pleasures of life. The world is not the place to test a vocation, my first letter that quoted author and Jesuit , Rev. Fr. William Doyle makes it dangerously clear,
“They urge that getting to know the world will develop their faculties and enable them to understand their own mind better; that such a process will broaden their views and help them to judge things at their proper value; finally, that a vocation which cannot stand such a trial, the buffeting of dangerous temptations, and the seductive allurements of worldly pleasures, to which it has been unnecessarily exposed, is no vocation and had far better be abandoned.”
There is a saying, by the fruits you can tell. The past 30 to 40 years have shown clearly that Mr. Sacramento's proposed method (no doubt noble in theory) is not bearing fruit?
Jesus in one of His parables tells us that only the seed that is planted in good soil would flourish and grow. Why then not plant the seeds in good soil as commanded by the divine sower?
God puts into the heart a coal.
It is up to those in authority to ensure it glows.
The external elements not only put out the glow,
it also destroys the coal.
In REPLY TO:
Church needs priests and religious of quality, not only quantity (Oct 25). I refer to the article written by Rose Loh in the October 29, 2006 issue of CN.
I most definitely agree that the Catholic Church needs more laborers in these crucial times. Indeed, temptations abound in our society today. But the urgent need for priests and religious is not only in terms of quantity, but also, of quality. By this I do not mean that opening the seminary to boys at an earlier stage of vocational discernment leads to ‘lower quality’ priests. But it certainly helps in the formation process of the future leaders of the Church that they fully understand the context in which our faith stands today. Certainly, faith does not grow in a vacuum, i.e., solely in the silent confines of the seminary. Precisely, Jesus calls us to be witnesses of His love and be engaged in the world. I see this as a motivation for the Church to allow discernment while being in the world.
We must remember that Jesus, Himself, was tempted by the devil ¬ not once, but thrice. It is precisely in knowing the enemy that we are able to fully prepare and equip ourselves to overcome temptation and sin. The complexity of the world today, brought by materialism and secular ideas, all the more are an imperative for pastors and shepherds who can handle the equally complex needs of the Church and its members. How can priests serve as good counsels and examples without the exposure to the real world? God is in and with the world. As the Letter of St. Paul to the Ephesians (5:8) instructs as to be Lux in Domino, or Light in the World, we must BE that light. As such, advising those who are hearing the call of religious life to continuously discern while being engaged in reality is not and must not be equated with the Church driving the laborers away. Rather, it is an open invitation to perseveringly choose God more and more as we live our daily lives, and consequently and freely reject evil in all its forms.
Manuel Ricardo Sacramento
Singapore 120330
Labels: Open Letter, Priesthood, Reply
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
