FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: I owe some of you an apology..
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
I do not think Jayne worships the Pope.
you say so.
sip
she sure comes across that way.
Protestants have been accusing good Catholics of worshiping the Pope for hundreds of years.
Takes one to know one
jaynke
We can pray for the Pope, and most of us do!!!  We can point out the good things that he has done, yes, BUT BUT we also have an obligation and duty to point out the bad things, such as going along with the current VII "novelties" concerning false ecumenism,, such as what he is doing in Germany right now, such as what he will do and who he will participate with in Assisi next month, and other of his various works confusing Catholics who don't know any better... I still don't understand what he was getting at when he said the use of condoms for sexually active homos was fine(I thought contraception wasn't permitted in any case!)! And I'm now reading he was once involved with many other vague, post VII, modernist irregularities concerning other doctrinal issues through these horrible past 40+ years.... So we should just keep our mouth shut about all these issues????????

For some reason, a few people who post on FE have this false notion that we all must be sedevacantists if we are critical of any Post Conciliar Pope!! That is what this whole issue seems to be about, but obviously they are in error!!
(09-22-2011, 09:48 AM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]So are you saying that the current Holy Father is the head of a new institutional church which Teaches things contrary to the Truth?  Whilst also being the true Pope of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?  That just doesn't make sense to me.

To me, if he's head of the former, there is a serious theological question whether he is actually head of the latter. That said, I accept the possibility--nay, probability--that he, in fact, not head of the latter. It cannot be both.

We are to recognize the Church (which is a recognizability known as Her discernability) by the four marks of the Church: Her unity, sanctity, catholicity, and apostolicity. I don't recognize those marks in the Novus Ordo. Hence, it is beyond any understanding how the latter can, in any way, fulfill the Old Testament prophecies concerning the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Nevertheless, that is a question I leave to the authority of Holy Mother Church.

Though so many traditionalist groups claim to have the answer, and presume to tell Catholics that must believe this or that concerning this crisis (that he is the pope / that he isn't the pope; that the Novus Ordo is Catholic / that the Novus Ordo isn't Catholic; that the teachings of the Second Vatican Council are heretical / that the teachings of the Second Vatican Council are not heretical), there is a legitimate theological question here that needs to be addressed by an authority greater than I. In the meantime, however, no matter what happens, no matter what the pope does, and no matter what the Novus Ordo says or teaches, we have an obligation to practice the traditional Catholic faith as it was always practiced and always taught. No pope has the authority to make that no longer relevent.
(09-22-2011, 07:34 AM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]To most here I suppose I'm that "Novus Ordo Conservative" (I honestly dislike any labels like these, I'm Catholic, end of).  And due to this.. I have been viewing most of you as being on the other opposite end of the spectrum from my self.  Which is unfair and down to nothing but my own ignorance on how these matters are meant to be dealt with (Papal authority, what if Pope falls into heresy etc.).  Essentially, whilst I have criticised papal moves etc., I have been living under the view that "the Pope can do no wrong".  I'm not exactly jumping for joy screaming "yipee" about Assisi (for talking's sake) but I have viewed my position of the be all and end all and anyone not on my side is at the other extreme.  For this I apologise.

I will say however that I still do not support the SSPX in its current irregularised position, I still abhor and detest the all too common language directed at the Holy Father and Rome and I still have a great distaste in my mouth at the talk of the Pope being Pope of two religions.

But yea, sorry.

Though I disagree with the article's generalizations, and though your defense of these popes never bothered me, your apology is welcome.
(09-23-2011, 01:44 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-23-2011, 01:40 AM)vakarian Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-22-2011, 05:28 PM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]AD has already silenced this case, lets move on shall we?  You were wrong, deal with it (though I should add that your attempts to defame the Holy Father for heresy etc., is quite disturbing).

Not nearly as disturbing as the borderline papalotry that several on this forum seem to display.

lol

Yes, because being too respectful toward the Holy Father would obviously be worse than attempting to slander him. You're just a model of Christian virtue, aren't you?

This appears to be a false dichotomy: if you point out that the pope says something against the faith, you are not being respectful.

That is what Vakarian means by papalotry.
(09-24-2011, 12:35 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-23-2011, 01:44 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-23-2011, 01:40 AM)vakarian Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-22-2011, 05:28 PM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]AD has already silenced this case, lets move on shall we?  You were wrong, deal with it (though I should add that your attempts to defame the Holy Father for heresy etc., is quite disturbing).

Not nearly as disturbing as the borderline papalotry that several on this forum seem to display.

lol

Yes, because being too respectful toward the Holy Father would obviously be worse than attempting to slander him. You're just a model of Christian virtue, aren't you?

This appears to be a false dichotomy: if you point out that the pope says something against the faith, you are not being respectful.

That is what Vakarian means by papalotry.

We aren't talking about people pointing out statements of the Pope that go against the Faith, though. City Smurf said that attempts to defame the Pope were disturbing, and Vakarian replied that "papalotry" was more disturbing. In my opinion, being overly respectful and defensive when it comes to the Pope is obviously not nearly as disturbing as attempting to defame him.
(09-24-2011, 01:29 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-24-2011, 12:35 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-23-2011, 01:44 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-23-2011, 01:40 AM)vakarian Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-22-2011, 05:28 PM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]AD has already silenced this case, lets move on shall we?  You were wrong, deal with it (though I should add that your attempts to defame the Holy Father for heresy etc., is quite disturbing).

Not nearly as disturbing as the borderline papalotry that several on this forum seem to display.

lol

Yes, because being too respectful toward the Holy Father would obviously be worse than attempting to slander him. You're just a model of Christian virtue, aren't you?

This appears to be a false dichotomy: if you point out that the pope says something against the faith, you are not being respectful.

That is what Vakarian means by papalotry.

We aren't talking about people pointing out statements of the Pope that go against the Faith, though. City Smurf said that attempts to defame the Pope were disturbing, and Vakarian replied that "papalotry" was more disturbing. In my opinion, being overly respectful and defensive when it comes to the Pope is obviously not nearly as disturbing as attempting to defame him.

I understand. But we're only talking about attempts to defame the pope because that is what theological criticisms are perceived as by those who think he is above criticism. Ggreg posted words from the pope that contradict Catholic theology, and when he defends the fact that this statement (and many others) is a contradiction, he is said to be making attempt to "defame the pope". We are then offered a false dichotomy in which any criticism of the pope is viewed as attempting to defame him. That is not fair and is the reason that those who engage in this tactic are often viewed as guilty of apparent papalotry.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12