FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Willful Ignorance over the Pope's Remarks
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
(11-21-2010, 04:43 PM)Jesse Wrote: [ -> ]I can't believe that someone is upset that the Pope gives interviews...

It seems like some Trads are just looking for every little tiny thing that the Pope does so they can jump all over him.

And by the way, people were shocked that Jesus went into the houses of sinners and ate with them...

Pax,
Jesse

Your disbelief only proves how successful the processing has been.

And Jesus went into the houses to convert sinners, not to, in effect, confirm them in their sin.
In my opinion, since Cardinal Ratzinger was instrumental in causing the present crisis within the Church, his election to the papacy is God's way of giving him the opportunity of a lifetime (a second chance) to set things to rights. 

The truth is that the pope has a heavily vested interest in VII being proven correct; thus, the war he must wage within himself to do what is right must be stupendous (which is why I compared him to the black suited Spider Man).  I think that all of the pope's actions must be judged in light of this fact, and that even when he does not seem to be winning the fight we must hope for his sake as well as our own that he perseveres.  For this reason, it may be in his best interest to refrain from speaking to journalists.
(11-21-2010, 04:49 PM)Jitpring Wrote: [ -> ]He said, in effect, that evil may be done that good may come of it.

I saw nothing like that in his words.  What specifically makes you think he is saying that? 
(11-21-2010, 04:54 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-21-2010, 04:49 PM)Jitpring Wrote: [ -> ]He said, in effect, that evil may be done that good may come of it.

I saw nothing like that in his words.  What specifically makes you think he is saying that? 

Reading that type of thing into statements seemingly at random seems to be what fuels the modernist witch hunt.
(11-21-2010, 03:59 PM)Jitpring Wrote: [ -> ]First, loving a sinner demands that he not be confirmed in his sin. One on the point of committing a sin that cries out to heaven - sodomy, for example - needs to hear that unless he repents he's on the road to hell, not taking a step to "moralization." True charity and compassion demand this. On a related note:

It's already pointed out that you commit an obvious logical fallacy in demanding arbitrarily that already promulgated teachings be repeated - infinitely?  The Church's, and the pope's, teachings on this matter are completely clear and public.  It takes someone with an agenda and strong bias to assert that because the pontiff did not point out that homosexual sex is objectively mortally sinful in this one situation that he does not believe or teach that.  It's just completely silly.


Quote:Second, to object to a pope's offering interviews for public scrutiny isn't to wish that the Church be shut away from the world. It's simply to ask that a pope behave in accord with the dignity of his station. He's a monarch, not a president. As the Vicar of Christ, his vocation demands that he maintain this station. When the crowds press in on him, he's to fly to the higher ground, as Christ did. When publicly speaking at length, that is, when teaching his flock, he's to speak from the mountaintop, as Christ did. Christ dealt with the people, yes, but He was no populist. He always spoke to them from above. "The crowds were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority." As must the alter Christus of Christ the King.

This is the true opening to the world demanded from a pope. To open himself to the world, he must flee from the world. He must die to the world and ascend. Only then will the world truly listen to him.

Have you not yet learned that Christianity is fundamentally paradoxical?

At worst, the pontiff made a practical blunder - because he is, indeed, human.  Period.  At worst, he made a mistake, and you have absolutely no right or position to judge him to the extent of calling his faith into question publicly because of it.

Being in the world but not of it is not at all how your initial statement struck me.  My mistake, perhaps.
(11-21-2010, 04:54 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-21-2010, 04:49 PM)Jitpring Wrote: [ -> ]He said, in effect, that evil may be done that good may come of it.

I saw nothing like that in his words.  What specifically makes you think he is saying that? 

By suggesting that using a condom as a hired sex man could lead to "moralization" rather than hell.
(11-21-2010, 04:16 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Among trads I expect a general recognition that fuller richer of the TLM is better than the "dumbed down" liturgy of the Novus Ordo.  Yet there are quite a few people here clamouring for "dumbed down" theology.  They are saying, "The Pope should not give real Catholic theology to people because they won't be able to understand it."  That was the very reasoning that, applied to liturgy, got us the NO Mass. 

The tradition of the Catholic Church is that there is some complexity to theology.  People who want something simplistic should be fundamentalists.  Within the Catholic Church we have an intellectual tradition of thinking through ideas and recognizing nuances.  It goes back to our earliest years and runs through the ages: St. Irenaeus, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzus, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, and more than I can list.  The Pope is guilty of talking like a Catholic rather than a fundamentalist.  Guess what.  That is as it should be.

Very well-put.  This type of dumbing-down of theology is prevalent among certain quarters on these forums.  To them, it seems that actually understanding something - in the sense the Church does, and always has - is always akin to "compromise" and the m-word.  The Church's teachings can be clarified, even by popes, in the most explicit manner possible, multiple times, and still it is not good enough, for they are convinced these teachings "contradict" what they're actually clarifying.

To some degree it is understandable in this environment of true confusion after the council, where real modernism really is afoot, yet to cling tightly to a clearly illogical position of accepting some of what the Church says and rejecting other things  obstinately in spite of overwhelming evidence that one's position is erroneous must require either great pride or great ignorance.
(11-21-2010, 05:05 PM)Jitpring Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-21-2010, 04:54 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-21-2010, 04:49 PM)Jitpring Wrote: [ -> ]He said, in effect, that evil may be done that good may come of it.

I saw nothing like that in his words.  What specifically makes you think he is saying that? 

By suggesting that using a condom as a hired sex man could lead to "moralization" rather than hell.

He said he could be a "first step" towards it. It can be interpreted favourably if you restrict it to sodomy.

However, if the male prostitute is not engaged in sodomy, something the Pope did not specify, then his comments become more problematic.
(11-21-2010, 05:04 PM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-21-2010, 03:59 PM)Jitpring Wrote: [ -> ]First, loving a sinner demands that he not be confirmed in his sin. One on the point of committing a sin that cries out to heaven - sodomy, for example - needs to hear that unless he repents he's on the road to hell, not taking a step to "moralization." True charity and compassion demand this. On a related note:

It's already pointed out that you commit an obvious logical fallacy in demanding arbitrarily that already promulgated teachings be repeated - infinitely?  The Church's, and the pope's, teachings on this matter are completely clear and public.  It takes someone with an agenda and strong bias to assert that because the pontiff did not point out that homosexual sex is objectively mortally sinful in this one situation that he does not believe or teach that.  It's just completely silly.


Quote:Second, to object to a pope's offering interviews for public scrutiny isn't to wish that the Church be shut away from the world. It's simply to ask that a pope behave in accord with the dignity of his station. He's a monarch, not a president. As the Vicar of Christ, his vocation demands that he maintain this station. When the crowds press in on him, he's to fly to the higher ground, as Christ did. When publicly speaking at length, that is, when teaching his flock, he's to speak from the mountaintop, as Christ did. Christ dealt with the people, yes, but He was no populist. He always spoke to them from above. "The crowds were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority." As must the alter Christus of Christ the King.

This is the true opening to the world demanded from a pope. To open himself to the world, he must flee from the world. He must die to the world and ascend. Only then will the world truly listen to him.

Have you not yet learned that Christianity is fundamentally paradoxical?

At worst, the pontiff made a practical blunder - because he is, indeed, human.  Period.  At worst, he made a mistake, and you have absolutely no right or position to judge him to the extent of calling his faith into question publicly because of it.

Being in the world but not of it is not at all how your initial statement struck me.  My mistake, perhaps.

My bad. By supporting the notion that using a condom as a hired sex man could lead to "moralization" rather than hell, you've clearly seized the moral high ground.
(11-21-2010, 05:06 PM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote: [ -> ]they are convinced these teachings "contradict" what they're actually clarifying.

Yes, the world's reaction to his words strongly indicates that he's clarified the matter. Silly me!
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13