FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: A traditional understanding of the papacy
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2

(12-24-2011, 01:16 AM)Someone1776 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-24-2011, 01:04 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-23-2011, 09:00 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-23-2011, 07:59 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]For the record, I did not post this quote to pick a fight.  I thought it was interesting because of the person who said it.

Of course you would like a quote from John Paul II!

That is not who said it.  I left off the attribution because I was wondering if anyone would recognize it. 

You should have followed my lead >:(

I thought you were following my lead.  :blush:  We better not go dancing together.
(You probably wouldn't want to waste your moves on an old granny when there are nubile trad bachelorettes to pursue, anyhow.  :grin: )
(12-24-2011, 03:01 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-23-2011, 07:24 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]I came across a good quote on this topic:
Quote:Our Lord is the Head of the Church. But since He willed that His Church should be visible, after His ascension into heaven, He gave her a visible head, who is His Vicar on earth, Peter and his successors…. To him alone did Our Lord give the power to feed the sheep and the lambs, he alone has full, sovereign, and immediate authority over each and every member of the Church. That is why the Church has always proclaimed herself to be a monarchy, governed by one man.

I think this is a good example of the traditional understanding of the Church and papacy.


But then again, I don't think anyone here contests this.

I have made remarkably similar comments and been called a modernist, a neo-cath and a crypto-jew, so the agreement has not been obvious to me.

(12-24-2011, 03:01 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]There is much smoke and diabolic disorientation today. Matters are much more complicated than the doctrine presented in the good bishop's statement. It is the clarity of such a teaching that makes people question the authenticity of these reforms, not accept them, as though the Faith can be legitimately changed in the way it has been. As Abp. Levebvre himself said, it makes much more sense to question whether the pope is actually the pope than to say that the Faith can change. Teachers can go astray, but the Faith can't. And if things were so straightforward there wouldn't be so much obvious confusion. It seems you are trying to make a point with this statement but I'm not sure what it is.

The point is that Bishop Fellay has not abandoned traditional ecclesiology.  Insisting that this is part of traditional Catholicism means that this is the framework in which traditional Catholics discuss the crisis.  I get accused of not recognizing that there is a crisis because I insist on using this ecclesiology.  I hope everyone acknowledges that Bishop Fellay recognizes that there is a crisis.
"The point is that Bishop Fellay has not abandoned traditional ecclesiology."
  Are you suprised?  ???
(12-24-2011, 02:00 PM)JMartyr Wrote: [ -> ]"The point is that Bishop Fellay has not abandoned traditional ecclesiology."
   Are you suprised?  ???

I had the impression that some people believe that it no longer applies under current circumstances.
Pages: 1 2