The Growing Scourge Of Catholic Tribalism

[mortify ii]

My question is this, then: if ecumenism is--by its very nature--accepting the idea of multiple truths, then doesn't it also--by its very nature--expose itself as not adhering to the Absolute Truth and thus absolutely wrong?

 

    There is a true sense of ecumenism which is a movement to restore separated Christians (Orthodox, Protestants, etc) back into the unity that already exists within the Catholic Church, and among these groups we see that there is already much agreement, especially in the case of the Orthodox. The problem begins when we start to loosen the focus of ecumenism and begin to suggest that other religions are salvific, that a person need not become Catholic, and that there is no such thing as absolute truth, or if there was we have no way of knowing about it. It renders evangelization and Christ's directive to baptize the world meaningless and void, and all that remains is superficial dialogue and some unspecified sense of unity.

    There is an openness about the Church nowadays which is good but can also be very crippling. It's gotten to the point where the Church can't speak authentically and clearly because it may offend this or that separated community or religion. If one sincerely believes they have obtained the truth, then they are required to be real and authentically express it, the same should hold true for the Catholic faith. 

[Rosaries]

Hopefully, through these relationships of mutual respect, we can pave the way for evangelizing them.

 

Those of different religious groups throughout history have mistreated and even persecuted each other. A great deal of healing is in order. Many people in the past as well as the present go about spreading the Gospel in a triumphalistic manner, meaning that people would be rude and smug about their beliefs. This approach really turned people off from Catholicism.

 

When evangelizing, one has to be humble and kind without watering down the fact that the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth.

 

I agree with everything you say here, but what truly confuses me is how often Catholics seem to think that Catholicism is "just one option" since Vatican II and the embrace of ecumenism.  I am strongly in favor of looking at pragmatics, not at theoretics.  Children care about pragmatics, not theoretics, and we are all called to have childlike simplicity before God. 

 

Theoretically, Vatican II was meant to create respect and love while evangelizing.  Pragmatically, it seems to make many, many people wonder why they are bothering to be Catholic at all.  If Catholicism is harder to practice than other faiths, and Catholicism now teaches that just about anyone can go to Heaven if they treat their neighbors with love and respect, then why be Catholic?  On a pragmatic level, it does not make sense. 

 

But just for the sake of it, I will also bring it up on a scholarly, theoretical level:  When it's stated that just about anyone can go to Heaven so long as they are nice to each other, it appears to be the complete reverse of many specific teachings of Jesus Himself.  He was a sword to divide people.  He expressed that Heaven is so difficult to get into that we as humans should literally be seeing it as an impossibility without some kind of miracle.  How else would an elephant pass through the eye of a needle?  It is impossible as far as we are concerned.  Compare that to our personal views of getting into Heaven--if we don't feel like it's impossible on a human level, then we are probably not thinking of Heaven correctly.

 

This means that if we are not taking advantage of all the wonderful graces that God gives us, especially the amazing and powerful sacraments He has graced upon the Catholic Church, I cannot imagine that we will make it to Heaven.

 

Ecumenism is a theoretically beautiful thing, but it causes so many problems in faith that I have concluded while using my childlike simplicity that it is too academic and too theoretical to be from the Holy Spirit.  We are called to love our neighbors themselves unconditionally, not their incorrect beliefs.

[BarbTherese]

I agree with everything you say here, but what truly confuses me is how often Catholics seem to think that Catholicism is "just one option" since Vatican II and the embrace of ecumenism.  I am strongly in favor of looking at pragmatics, not at theoretics.  Children care about pragmatics, not theoretics, and we are all called to have childlike simplicity before God. 

Hi there, Rosaries.  Lovely username - I made my private vows on the feast of Our Lady of The Rosary some 30 odd years ago.

Again, having lived through pre and post V2 years and not really understanding what V2 was really all about until I was given this computer and could do cost free research myself, I think often dating a comment and problem in The Church as post V2 which is quite valid, some misinterpret such dating as meaning that V2 per se was somehow at fault and the cause of the existing problem.  It is not V2 itself that is the problem as I see things, it is people's understanding and misinterpretation of The Council.  It has become quite evident to me with the easy free research a computer does facilitate, that probably those that had modernist and millennialism philosophies did exploit and manipulate to their own agenda, and still continue to do so.

 

Theoretically, Vatican II was meant to create respect and love while evangelizing.  Pragmatically, it seems to make many, many people wonder why they are bothering to be Catholic at all.  If Catholicism is harder to practice than other faiths, and Catholicism now teaches that just about anyone can go to Heaven if they treat their neighbors with love and respect, then why be Catholic?  On a pragmatic level, it does not make sense. 

Again, this is a misunderstanding of what The Church teaches and our obligation to follow our conscience and an obligation before God.  If one arrives at a conviction that The Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Jesus, then one has an obligation to follow through on that conviction and before God.  If anyone has a simple understanding of things, I would be well in their ranks.

 

But just for the sake of it, I will also bring it up on a scholarly, theoretical level:  When it's stated that just about anyone can go to Heaven so long as they are nice to each other, it appears to be the complete reverse of many specific teachings of Jesus Himself.  He was a sword to divide people.  He expressed that Heaven is so difficult to get into that we as humans should literally be seeing it as an impossibility without some kind of miracle.  How else would an elephant pass through the eye of a needle?  It is impossible as far as we are concerned.  Compare that to our personal views of getting into Heaven--if we don't feel like it's impossible on a human level, then we are probably not thinking of Heaven correctly.

I think as Catholics, we need to get what The Church is stating into context.  Undoubtedly and because Our God is indeed All Loving and Merciful, He is not going to condemn to Hell a person who has lived a good life according to their conscience.  Such would be obviously unjust. The Gift of Faith is a free Gift of God not given to all.  This is not a change in what The Church has to state nor what Jesus taught - it is putting things into the overall context.  We claim to be the one true Church that Jesus founded and continues unbroken until today.  Putting things into some sort of context, it is difficult to be Catholic probably looking from the outside in; however, with Baptism into The Church and the faithful reception of The Sacraments, all the Graces necessary are more than abundant to meet all life challenges.

As Pope Benedict told us - the only thing we have to fear is unfaithfulness IN The Church "“The only danger the Church can and should fear is the sin of her members,”  http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2011/12/08/church-should-fear-sin-of-members-more-than-persecution-says-pope/     

Personally, I was happy when I read that statement as confirmation, since I had long wondered how much my own sinfulness contributes to the problems in our Church and world.  I too am a sinner. And Jesus has told us that His followers and disciples are "the salt of the earth and what happens if the salt looses its taste?" (if things are in a mess, then who is to blame?)  That statement of Jesus found a home with me and Pope Benedict eliminated the question mark.

 

This means that if we are not taking advantage of all the wonderful graces that God gives us, especially the amazing and powerful sacraments He has graced upon the Catholic Church, I cannot imagine that we will make it to Heaven.

I don't think that I can judge - I leave all that up to God at Judgement.  However, I would be warning that one could well be skating on salvation thin ice to not be faithful to our Faith - not a judgement but a fear. "Perfect Love casts out fear" tells me that I still have a very long long way to go!

 

Ecumenism is a theoretically beautiful thing, but it causes so many problems in faith that I have concluded while using my childlike simplicity that it is too academic and too theoretical to be from the Holy Spirit.  We are called to love our neighbors themselves unconditionally, not their incorrect beliefs.

This to me is not a problem with ecumenism per se - it is a very real and huge problem of Catholics misunderstanding their Faith and not always a culpable matter.  It is a problem of catechesis right through life, of continuing formation in The Faith.  Again, we need context : Jesus has told us that we should even love our enemies and do good to those who persecute and calumniate us - and this is from The Holy Spirit.  This can be a problem of discerning what indeed is "good" in a given situation and The Church takes this very real obligation, duty, responsibility and accountability very seriously and in Her Teaching Authority - and Her obligation, duty, responsibility and accountability.  To me personally, it all boils down to loyalty (for Love of God) to what Rome states and trustful confidence in Jesus to be with His Church "all days even to the consummation of the world" and not let us be led totally astray.  This is not mindless Faith, rather it is mindful Faith and Faith that seeks understanding.  However, if I have to toss up between what I understand and obedience to The Church.  I know that obedience is a powerful virtue and that which I would choose, while not necessarily ceasing to strive to understand, mindful of my own obligations and duties before God and with accountability too.

 

I can really be compassionately understanding to those Catholics who do at times either somewhat or quite seriously misunderstand our Faith and what The Church does teach.  I know beyond doubt that if I did not have this computer and the time to research as much as I do, my own understandings would be far more lacking than I hope and think that they are - while sighting that I just may not be as well informed as I think and hope.  Since I live alone under private vows and 68yrs of age sees me slowed down almost to a crawl with my two sons now adult and totally independent, I do have plenty of time to strive to understand and research.  In our fast moving world, I am very much aware that not all do indeed.  If I can see these factors, far more so can our Loving Lord.  And all too well aware am I that with the Gifts of God come responsibility and accountability before Him.

 

Happy 2014 all...............Barb :)
 

 

[BarbTherese]

Pope Benedict : "He told the crowds gathered for the event that Mary is "free from every stain of sin (and) the church is holy, but at the same time is marked by our sins."

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1104798.htm
 

[NotreDame]

 So thank the Gnostics for the scourge that is Islam

 

Hilaire Belloc had a good essay on this in his book about heresies.
 

[An Historian]

As a preamble of sorts I give you all fair warning.  Do not expect the following post to be well constructed as rather than quote each poster individually I am just going to throw my opinion on there on the myriad of topics introduced into this rather interesting thread.

 

Vatican II... oh you rather interesting creature.

 

If anyone has a thorough read on subject of Church history then you will realise that the Council has both its similarities and differences with previous councils.  First and foremost it's not the first Council to reek havoc in the world and God knows it wont be the last (and God spare me from witnessing the next one!).  Quite frankly the politicking that has gone on before, the outright hijacking that has occurred!  Goodness, it's a stark reality check that even the saints were humans.  Everyone should count their blessings right now that they weren't around for the fiasco between the Antiochian and Alexandrian schools.  Nor is the Vatican II Council the first council to produce documents or statements that seem either contradictory or ambiguous or just outright lame.  Just consider all of the early Christological controversies and the fact that Churchmen applied different theological languages to the very same concepts.

 

But to the credit of the earlier Councils, Vatican II really is not the best written of Councils.  But I believe that the true fault lies in the follow-through.  The men, the mere human mortals, of the Church failed to defend orthodoxy and doctrine.  It's not so much that the Council lends itself to misinterpretation but rather that the hierarchy has tolerated the misinterpretation!  I fully believe in Pope Benedict XVI's hermeneutic of continuity and that Vatican II can and will be reconciled.  But it will not happen until there is reform.  Not of doctrine, we are Catholics!  We do not fall into the same error of the Protestant.  No, true reform of Churchmen.  Emotionally, mentally and spiritually.  The problem we face today is the same problem we faced 2000 years ago when the Pope once denied Christ and it is the same problem that we will face until the consummation of the world.  That the Church is composed of weak, fallible, feeble sinners and mere men.

 

But the true crisis in the Church today that marks it distinct from the chaos of yesteryear is that we no longer live in Catholic societies.  There has been a wholesale apostasy from the Faith on a cultural and social level.  There has been an outright abandonment of the Holy Church and the one true faith for materialism and all manner of hedonism.  The earlier councils were protected by one fact.  The Western Schism was survived because of one fact.  Society itself was Christian.  Perhaps not good Christians.  But human beings are social creatures, it is how God created us.  And anyone that's spent even one hour at a college psychology lecture will tell you, societal expectations and pressures play a tremendous role on forming human minds.  The problem with the second Vatican Council is that it came at the worse possible time.  It came in response to the times.  And it failed spectacularly.  The Catholic ghetto is dead.  France abandoned the Faith and installed its whore of "Reason" upon the Holy Altar of Notre Dame.  Germany fell to the materialism of Marx and the admirable lunacy of Nietzsche.  The Church couldn't afford to blunder in the environment it found itself in.  And yet it failed spectacularly.

 

Oh the response was certainly on the right track in many respects.  "Religious liberty" has never been dogma.  The Church responds to secular necessities as they arise.  Oh we loved the French Kings when they weren't enthralled in the heresies of Gallicanism.  But when they were gone we could hardly cling to the attachment to the old throne that was dead and buried.  So Pope Leo XIII told us to get along with the Republican government, as abominable as it was.  In modern secular society again we have a situation.  It's not the same as it once was.  Globalism does not allow for it.  The Council itself was and is still in favour of the Catholic state!  But it also testifies to the reality that the global situation is different than it was in 15th century Europe.  And again Ecumenism.  It is the correct response to globalism.  We're not alone in this world, human societies are so diverse now.  Entire estates in Britain are completely Arab Muslim which would have been unthinkable a mere 100 years ago!

The problem is that Churchmen ignored the other side of the coin.  Yes we need to dialogue with our Muslim neighbours, our Buddhist neighbours.  But we can never compromise on the truth of the necessity of the Church for salvation.  We can never compromise doctrine and dogma for the mere sake of sentimental societal relations.  The principles, on the whole, are sound.  The execution leaves so much wanting that I must agree with Belloc that the monumental failures of the Church are an infallible testament to the Divine constitution of the Church.  Because no human institution could ever survive the outstanding mess-ups that have occurred.  Holy Mother Church could only have survived because of divine assistance!

 

And this leads me on to my next point...

 

Doctrine, culture, identity, practise... these things are important.  These things are gravely important.  There [i]has[/i] to be a firm defense of the Truth for the sake of Mankind's Salvation.  It is important that the Council be discussed in a doctrinal light because of the mess that has sprung up.  And it is important that this conversation be forced upon the Church even if they are unwilling to take it up themselves.  The laity's role is more important than ever now in this regard.  Our bishops are limp-wristed.  Our parish priests are incompetent.  If they wont do it, then it is up to us to put the pressure on them.  And the simply fact is that a lone voice does not cry as loud as an army of voices.  This is human nature at its core.  We are political beings and in politics, those with the power and those with the numbers are heard.

 

Sitting in a corner singing "Why can't we be friends?" wont get anything done.  Oh sure we'll all be smiling and it'll all be so "nice".  But whilst we're sitting about ignoring the important issues, the world will continue on its steady slide into oblivion and the salvation of human souls will be at peril.  Yes that's right.  If the Church fails in its mission to evangelise, human souls will be lost.

 

Now this is not an excuse to uncharitable conduct.  He without charity will not enter into the beatific vision.  This is not an excuse for backbiting, mean words, or the host of ills that beset human relations.  But this is a reason for why "tribes" of necessity must exist.

 

Now a word on a few miscellaneous things.  Communion on the hand vs communion on the tongue.  Communion on the hand was historically used in the West as a sign of one's unbelief in the Real Presence.  Western culture and heritage has dictated that the reverent act was to kneel and receive Our Lord on the tongue.  Communion on the hand was born from an act of disobedience and rebellion.  The Church tolerates it.  But I must ask you why you continue to participate in an act with a history so revolting?!  I will not say you are a sinner.  But I will certainly say that you contributing to the erosion of a Catholic culture, identity and spirituality that has existed for centuries upon centuries.  And not a single one of you can give a solid argument in its favour other than Rome "tolerates" it.  Well the Church tolerates a host of things.  That doesn't mean they're good.  It means the men of the Church have been weak.

 

My point with this is that some of the things that are dismissed so lightly as trad "meanism", are truly important.

 

I read an earlier post in this thread discussing how nasty some trads have been.  Well I feel rather qualified to state categorically that I have never once came across a judgemental or nasty trad.  I have assisted at and served the Extraordinary Form for years, at Low Masses, Sung Masses and Solemn High Masses.  I have assisted at the Extraordinary Form in five nations and been involved in their communities and met countless men and women that assist there.  I have witnessed women without head coverings, I have witnessed women in jeans, I have witnessed men in button down shirts and torn trousers, all in the pews.  I've served Mass myself in a pair of sneakers and jeans when the occasion called.

 

But that's my own personal experience.  I've just been extraordinarily blessed.  Because I know trads aren't saints in general.  They're as human as you or I.  Some will be nasty, some will be nice.  They're both people and are both prone to common human faults and weaknesses.

 

This post I posit as a defense for Catholic "tribalism", which is not only a necessary function of human nature, but a beneficial one at that.

 

And just to note, I would not describe myself as a "traditional" Catholic.  Merely a Catholic will do for me.

[BarbTherese]

Because no human institution could ever survive the outstanding mess-ups that have occurred.  Holy Mother Church could only have survived because of divine assistance!

 

 

................ :like2:

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

I think that sometimes people are just being ratbags thinking they know it all, perhaps me too buying in to this discussion. This is my opinion and as far as i'm aware the True opinion of the Holy Roman Catholic Church in general, unless your some kind of rogue that misunderstands something or is ignorant to the truth on the matter. All Vatican councils are valid including Vatican 2, all an extension of the Jerusalem council. An extension i guess is just like extending a house, you have the original house and you just add rooms, all being a valid part of the original house and attached to the original house in some way or another whether directly or indirectly attached to a room that is attached to the original house. The council of Nicea is  valid as is Vatican 1 and 2. You can still get a lot out of studying previous Vatican councils as you can studying the writings of saints from the 1000s, each jewel in a crown is valuable and without them the crown is not complete.

 

And An Historian do you really believe there was ever some majority catholic christian nation and i'm talking more than 60% of the population being practicing catholic Christians? As far as i'm aware it is non existent to date, i may be wrong. The only example i can think of that may be majority practicing catholic christian is Malta, and i'm unsure if that number is more than 60%. No pun intended.

 

Jesus iz LORD.

 

 

Edited January 3, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[reyb]

 

And this leads me on to my next point...

 

Doctrine, culture, identity, practise... these things are important.  These things are gravely important.  There has to be a firm defense of the Truth for the sake of Mankind's Salvation.  It is important that the Council be discussed in a doctrinal light because of the mess that has sprung up.  And it is important that this conversation be forced upon the Church even if they are unwilling to take it up themselves.  The laity's role is more important than ever now in this regard.  Our bishops are limp-wristed.  Our parish priests are incompetent.  If they wont do it, then it is up to us to put the pressure on them.  And the simply fact is that a lone voice does not cry as loud as an army of voices.  This is human nature at its core.  We are political beings and in politics, those with the power and those with the numbers are heard.

 

Sitting in a corner singing "Why can't we be friends?" wont get anything done.  Oh sure we'll all be smiling and it'll all be so "nice".  But whilst we're sitting about ignoring the important issues, the world will continue on its steady slide into oblivion and the salvation of human souls will be at peril.  Yes that's right.  If the Church fails in its mission to evangelise, human souls will be lost.

 

 

There is really urgency in your words as if something is not really right, if people has differing religious opinion or beliefs, whether inside or out of your Church.  On the other note, It seems, you are not truly ready for a ‘unity’ of all different religions because you do not want to compromise you own too. So, I think what you are saying is ‘conversion.’ My question is this....    

 

Why it is very important  for you to have convert into your own religion? Are you saying for’ Mankind’s Salvation’? If that is the case, do you have any idea why God did not let it happen? 

Edited January 3, 2014 by reyb

[KnightofChrist]

WARNING: All Reyb post will lead to "historical Jesus". :|

[reyb]

WARNING: All Reyb post will lead to "historical Jesus". :|

 

....because your hope and faith was anchored on that historical Jesus.   :hehe2:

 

Anyway, do you have any idea why God did not let it happen? 

Edited January 3, 2014 by reyb

[KnightofChrist]

....because your hope and faith was anchored on that historical Jesus.   :hehe2:
 
Anyway, do you have any idea why God did not let it happen? 

Let what not happen?

[mortify ii]

Yes, but I don't think Islam is just a Christian heresy as Beloc proposed.

[NotreDame]

Rorate has a timely post on this subject:

 

[...] Ideology is the intellect that is disproportionate and hypertrophied, that wills to not pay attention to observation--- to see how things are as they are--- so that it can put its faith in its own theoretical and intellectual constructions.

 

We hear often the present Pontiff speak against “ideological” Christians, and many read this as referring to Christians of a traditional mind-set, who are accustomed only to denounce the state of the Faith and of the Church in terms that are never positive.  Now this definition is not very useful, because there is  so much “ideological Catholicism” in our day.  But let us ask ourselves:  in whom is this attitude found?  To whom should this verbal tag be attached?  To those who read things as they are or to those who indulge in the illusion that things are going well when they are not going well at all?

 

Many know the famous phrase of a well-known Soviet theoretician:  “If the facts do not agree with us, all the worse for the facts”.  This maxim fits the attitude of all too many Catholics today.  Faced with the obvious crisis in the life of Grace, faced with the corresponding crisis in the Church, they insist that there is no need to change pastoral directives, the direction in which things have been moving, the specific initiatives of the last ten years. They would say: the problem is not there, the problem cannot be there.  Still, through the wisdom of the Gospels, Christians should be absolutely convinced that a tree is known by its fruit.

 

Monsignor Giacomo Biffi,  Bishop-emeritus of Bologna, using his inimitable style, in his Fifth Gospel wrote in relation to this widespread attitude:  “The Reign of Heaven is similar to a pastor who has one hundred sheep and having lost ninety-nine of them, scolds that last sheep for his lack of initiative, sends him away, closes the sheep-fold, and goes to the local osteria to discuss pastoral ministry.”  It gives one pause when one remembers that Biffi wrote these words as long ago as 1969:  a true prophecy.

 

Last Advent the Cardinal of Vienna, Monsignor Schonborn, preached in the diocese of Milan, and, speaking of the Church of today, he said:  “(…)let us get rid of nostalgia for the ‘50s, those of my childhood, in my village, when the church was filled with people three times every Sunday.  Everyone went to church.  Let us leave behind nostalgia for the vitality of our places of prayer in the ‘50s and ‘60s.”  This is an example of the real “Christian ideology”.  It is one thing to say that, recognizing the difference between the past and the present, the Catholic should not lose heart. It is another thing to say that the longing for another time should be abandoned.  When one loses something beautiful, this longing is more than appropriate, and it is the only response that is human and reasonable.

 

 

[...  More at Rorate ...]

 

 

 

 

[An Historian]

There is really urgency in your words as if something is not really right, if people has differing religious opinion or beliefs, whether inside or out of your Church.  On the other note, It seems, you are not truly ready for a ‘unity’ of all different religions because you do not want to compromise you own too. So, I think what you are saying is ‘conversion.’ My question is this....    

 

Why it is very important  for you to have convert into your own religion? Are you saying for’ Mankind’s Salvation’? If that is the case, do you have any idea why God did not let it happen? 

 

But God has facilitated its accomplishment.  He divinely instituted Holy Mother Church as a light in the darkness for all men to embrace their salvation.  However the reason that the world has not converted comes down to the very simple reality of free will.  God does not force us to convert.  That must be an election of our own choosing.

 

The masses that will end up in hell will be there of their own volition.