FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Cardinal Carlo Martini says Church '200 years behind'
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
(09-02-2012, 04:48 PM)Whitey Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-02-2012, 09:41 AM)TraditionalistThomas Wrote: [ -> ]Because traditionalists have been optimistic for 40 years. No significant improvement yet.

You can't be serious ?

Even JPII granted indult for the TLM. BXVI has freed it from indult. There is more if you take the time to look.

I'm sorry, but there is improvement. The only thing getting worse is the hardness of hearts and the schismatic mindset of the radical trads,

Denial of the good doesn't mean it's not happening.

There is a lot of evil and error still to be undone, I agree. No denying that.

jmo

I can't speak to the whole 40 years since I've only been a Catholic for 32 and a Trad for, say, 25, but this is basically what I was going to say. When I became a Catholic, the only TLMs were SSPX or indie. There were no diocesan TLMs, no FSSP, ICKSP, or other Traditional Institutes, etc.

While there is still a long way to go, massive strides have been made over the years I'm familiar with.
(09-02-2012, 08:41 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]More and more people recognize that not the Church but Cardinal Martini's ideas were out of date.  They belonged to an era of theological and liturgical experimentation that is reaching its end.

I certainly pray this is the case. I have seen evidence of it that leaves me feeling very hopeful.

As far as having to be pessimistic to qualify as a trad... Nah. There are many legitimate reasons to be positive about the current state of affairs.
Yes, the reason our churches are empty is because we haven't been progressive enough.  That must be it.

May God have mercy on his soul.  I hope that his blasphemy and abandonment of the faithful under his care doesn't mean the worst for him.

The thing I don't understand is that he was a bishop under Pope JPII for 25 years (and a cardinal for 23).  People tell me that JPII may not have been privy to all the facts when he was recommended for the episcopacy - fine, I don't know all the facts.  But how was he allowed to roam around and spread error with so much authority for so long without being reined in?  It strikes me as nothing less than gross negligence.
(09-02-2012, 11:44 PM)Pheo Wrote: [ -> ]The thing I don't understand is that he was a bishop under Pope JPII for 25 years (and a cardinal for 23).  People tell me that JPII may not have been privy to all the facts when he was recommended for the episcopacy - fine, I don't know all the facts.  But how was he allowed to roam around and spread error with so much authority for so long without being reined in?  It strikes me as nothing less than gross negligence.

and Benedict XVI says he thinks "fondly of this dear brother who generously served the Gospel and the Church. I remember with gratitude his intense apostolic work, which he generously carried out as a zealous religious and spiritual son of St. Ignatius, an exceptional teacher, authoritative biblical scholar and esteemed rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University and the Pontifical Biblical Institute, and then as a diligent and wise archbishop of this Ambrosian Archdiocese. I also think of the competent and fervent service he rendered to the Word of God, by opening to the ecclesial community the treasures of sacred Scripture, especially through the promotion of lectio divina."
(09-02-2012, 11:44 PM)Pheo Wrote: [ -> ]The thing I don't understand is that he was a bishop under Pope JPII for 25 years (and a cardinal for 23).  People tell me that JPII may not have been privy to all the facts when he was recommended for the episcopacy - fine, I don't know all the facts.  But how was he allowed to roam around and spread error with so mucha authority for so long without being reined in?  It strikes me as nothing less than gross negligence.

Not a personal attack but this, "i don't know all the facts" response used by Catholics, in cases such as these seems to me to be an excellent way for evil men to hold onto power.

What if 30 years ago we had taken an educated guess and militantly protested the appointment of blatant apostates such as Martini?

Does any change ever happen without someone acting on suspicion, or gut feel?
(09-02-2012, 11:55 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-02-2012, 11:44 PM)Pheo Wrote: [ -> ]The thing I don't understand is that he was a bishop under Pope JPII for 25 years (and a cardinal for 23).  People tell me that JPII may not have been privy to all the facts when he was recommended for the episcopacy - fine, I don't know all the facts.  But how was he allowed to roam around and spread error with so much authority for so long without being reined in?  It strikes me as nothing less than gross negligence.

and Benedict XVI says he thinks "fondly of this dear brother who generously served the Gospel and the Church. I remember with gratitude his intense apostolic work, which he generously carried out as a zealous religious and spiritual son of St. Ignatius, an exceptional teacher, authoritative biblical scholar and esteemed rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University and the Pontifical Biblical Institute, and then as a diligent and wise archbishop of this Ambrosian Archdiocese. I also think of the competent and fervent service he rendered to the Word of God, by opening to the ecclesial community the treasures of sacred Scripture, especially through the promotion of lectio divina."

Don't be such a Protestant, man.
Let's be grown-ups.  BXVI is a good pope by comparison to Paul VI, in my mind little better than an agnostic.  He may be a good pope compared to the Medicis.  He is not a good pope compared to what even the average trad layman would make.  I mean what would the three things you would do first be?  Would they be ambiguous or potentially damaging?  Nah, didn't think so.

And I really bet they wouldn't be "the pedophile shell game", Assissi III or appointing people like Martini either.
The scandalous Popes of the Renaissance were depraved, but they were theologically sound. That is not the case with the modern Popes.
(09-02-2012, 12:30 PM)Rosarium Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-02-2012, 09:41 AM)TraditionalistThomas Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-02-2012, 09:10 AM)Rosarium Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-02-2012, 09:08 AM)TraditionalistThomas Wrote: [ -> ]Sure, that sounds nice in theory, but it isn't reality. Another heretic/heterodox prelate will take his place, personally appointed by the Holy Father. The crisis will continue.

Why do you want to think evil?

The crisis, like all assaults on the Church, will have a "beginning" and an "end", but the same assault remains.

Because traditionalists have been optimistic for 40 years. No significant improvement yet.

You do realise 40 years is nothing. That is not even a lifetime of the people involved.

Keep in mind:

* The Schism which separates a major part of the Church has been ongoing for almost 1000 years
* The Arian heresy took around 400 years to become a minor issue
* The Protestant heresies are alive and well, although heavily mutated and incredibly diverse
* Almost every other major heresy and council to address them took much longer to show any resolution than 50 years

I suspect that if this crisis as it is persists for two hundred years, it has a chance of being remembered at all by the average Catholic in 1000 years, assuming time goes that far.

I know that 40 years is nothing in the life of the Church. But I don't see what is the point of being blindly optimistic about the current crisis in the Church. That does not mean that I am betraying faith, hope and charity. It means that I am being realistic.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6