FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

(11-25-2012, 07:23 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]If you're not distressed, you're comfortable.
The comfortable are to be afflicted.
You should, therefore, be afflicting yourself.

QED

You clearly do not understand. The one who comforts and afflicts must of course be exempt from doling these things out. He ought to be "above the fray."

(11-25-2012, 04:42 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]He was suspected because of the witch hunt/tattle-tale squad which developed at that time (1907 or so), which was an unintended consequence of the vigorous anti-modernist campaign. He, of course, was vindicated well before VII by Benedict XV, especially when he dissolved the Sodality of Pius V. The story is he lent a book to a student, a church history by Duchesne. God wonders why someone so rigorist as Ottaviani would have deigned to work under a modernist? Why would Pius XI make a modernist a bishop? Why would Pius XII make a modernist a Cardinal? I'm one of those weird people that actually trusts the Pope when he says to us, "This man had heroic virtue. This miracle is trustworthy." He needn't be the spotless Virgin Mary to have this honor. There are numerous examples of imperfection in saints. How about Gregory of Nyssa believing in universal salvation? How about Pius IX being a liberal. Who knows what he taught before he became Pope. How about cantankerous St Jerome? How about Aquinas being on the wrong side of the Immaculate Conception? How about Francis getting naked for everyone? How about Joan of Arc who dressed like a man?

If you've got a cite for the active (not just passive) vindication of Roncalli, I would be interested.  As I'm already doing papers for the end of the semester right now, you will understand my lack of inclination to do additional research.  Also, my usual caveat:  bite-size chunks.  If you pass me something like an entire encyclical of JP2, you can bet that I will read about two (maybe ten) paragraphs in before I'm absolutely sick of it.

A cite for Gregory of Nyssa believing in universal salvation would be good, too.  Thanks.

I find it rather interesting that you chose the date 1907, smack in the middle of the reign of St. Pius X, for the date of the "witch hunt/tattle-tale squad" "that developed" around that time.  It's not like this "witch hunt/tattle-tale squad" was something positively willed by a pope who was a saint.  Good grief.  And you accuse us of judging the Church?

If you're describing Pius X's crackdown on modernists in terms worthy of a liberal or a three-year-old, you'll have to pardon me if I think you've drunk rather too much of the liberal poison.

Dang, starting out, I meant for this post to sound conciliatory.  I guess things just don't work out that way sometimes.

(11-25-2012, 04:52 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-25-2012, 04:51 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]The SSPX forgot that the magesterium can wake up one day after two thousand years and do a 180.  Good good.

Hmm ... the big bone is religious liberty which has a 200 year vintage.

Religious liberty is not the only problem. Heretical ecclesiology and ecumenism are as well.

Heresy is heresy, no matter how old it is. This 200 year argument means nothing, especially since the pontiffs of the last 150 years fought so vigorously against it.

Well there are only three options

1.  The miracle is true
2.  It is not a miracle and their is not lying but rather someone being delusional.
3.  It is not a miracle and there is lying going on


I believe it is a miracle, because I hope in the mercy of God and I trust that Nun and the medical doctors testimony.  I have no reason to believe that she is lying or the doctor, and unless very clear an overwhelming evidence is presented to a proper authority (not me) and they rule it false I will trust it.

(11-25-2012, 08:29 PM)nmoerbeek Wrote: [ -> ]Well there are only three options

1.  The miracle is true
2.  It is not a miracle and their is not lying but rather someone being delusional.
3.  It is not a miracle and there is lying going on


I believe it is a miracle, because I hope in the mercy of God and I trust that Nun and the medical doctors testimony.  I have no reason to believe that she is lying or the doctor, and unless very clear an overwhelming evidence is presented to a proper authority (not me) and they rule it false I will trust it.

Pretty much how I see it as well.

(11-25-2012, 08:12 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]If you've got a cite for the active (not just passive) vindication of Roncalli, I would be interested.  As I'm already doing papers for the end of the semester right now, you will understand my lack of inclination to do additional research.  Also, my usual caveat:  bite-size chunks.  If you pass me something like an entire encyclical of JP2, you can bet that I will read about two (maybe ten) paragraphs in before I'm absolutely sick of it.

If we are to operate as Catholics, the onus is on you. If Benedict XV, Pius XI, and Pius XII didn't reprimand him, then I think we have good proof. If Pius XI made him bishop, then I think we have good proof. If Pius XII made him Cardinal, then I think we have good proof. If the Cardinals of the Church elected him, then I think we have good proof. If Ottaviani, the bulldog of orthodoxy if there ever was one, privy to those files, accepted him and worked obediently under him, then I think we have good proof. Your level of proof is really unrealistic. By the way, Benedict XV (sic) himself was suspected of modernism as well. The whole thing blew out of control. Ref. History and Heresy: How Historical Forces Can Create Doctrinal Conflicts  By Joseph F Kelly, PH.D.

(11-25-2012, 08:12 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]A cite for Gregory of Nyssa believing in universal salvation would be good, too.  Thanks.

It's well known. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01599a.htm

(11-25-2012, 08:12 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]I find it rather interesting that you chose the date 1907, smack in the middle of the reign of St. Pius X, for the date of the "witch hunt/tattle-tale squad" "that developed" around that time.  It's not like this "witch hunt/tattle-tale squad" was something positively willed by a pope who was a saint.  Good grief.  And you accuse us of judging the Church?

I already said in my post before it was an unintended consequence of his vigorous campaign.  :tiphat:

(11-25-2012, 11:54 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]Gerard, I live firmly in reality. I know all these issues, am well versed in them. You bring them up to somehow give yourself credibility.

I bring up realities like the crisis in order to show that your positions do not live in the vacuum that you would prefer they live in. 

Quote: Let's just spell it out. I don't think you mind. You distrust the Popes since 1958.

With good reason. 

Quote:  You distrust the hierarchy involved with investigating the lives of people.

Sure do.  Again, with good reason. 

Quote:  You distrusted the testimony of a nun and her companions, including the doctors involved.

I distrust an article that I read.

Quote:  You don't believe in canonizations anyways except as an act of "pious belief", apparently on the same level as private revelations, in contradiction to probably every theologian in the Church.

The term "pious belief" concerning canonizations is from St. Thomas Aquinas.  And simply put, a theologian can go on all day, but public revelation is closed.  If the theologians are right, they are wrong ipso facto because the Church is a fraud at that point. 

Quote:  Thus even with this lowered requirement, the increase in freedom to have this pious belief is not granted.

I'm not granting or preventing anyone from believing anything.  I'm just not going to foment error while people fantasize about a Church that is more supernatural in their mind than the real Church established by Christ. 

Quote: We know you'll come up here and argue against JPII when he is canonized.

I would hope God would not permit that scandal.  Even if JPII repented and made it into Heaven (which of course would be a good thing.)  That would be better served as a pleasant surprise for everyone after the final judgment. 

Quote: Who knows, maybe you'll argue against Pius XII too.

Probably not.  But the fact that we've had only 3 canonized Popes in the last 1000 years should be sobering to the pull of the cult of personality to have our own Popes be canonized when we're only looking at them as celebrities. 

Quote: So, yes, you have freedom here to put our your views, but I will use my freedom to tell others that you seek to tear down faith and belief in the Church and her official acts.

And I will counter that what I'm tearing down in your false construction, a romantic facade that has nothing to do with the essence or ecclesiology of the Church.  What I'm cleaning up and leaving people with is a clear understanding of the Church in which you can be disappointed with the Church Men, without losing your faith.  What you offer is a romantic notion that leads to one of two things:  Despair because the Church is lost as an organization (seed-position) or delusion and evil is good and lies are true and truth changes.(conservative Catholicism) 

Quote: If Fatima is a private revelation, then it may optionally be observed, with no new requirements on the faithful. Thus Pope John XXIII could take or leave it. Or do you now hold pious beliefs to be on the level of obligatory dogmas?

Nope. I don't.  But the heirarchy from John XXIII onwards has never been straight about the contents.  If Pope John didn't believe in Fatima, he could've said so.  But instead he and his successors have all either pretended to believe in it or have treated it with scorn if they did believe in it.  Good luck to the Pope who holds either position. 

Quote: John XXIII in the Council had faith in Christ. Novel that, right? Believing that when 2 or 3 were gathered in His name, He would be there.

For an Italian, John XXIII had a lot of blarney.  An ecumenical council was being discussed during the later years of Pius XII and Card. Tardini brought up the idea to John.  And then John came up with his "inspiration from the Holy Ghost."  to hold a council.  Yeah...right. 

Quote: And as for periti, maybe John  XXIII could sympathize with some of them, being himself falsely accused of modernism. He died before any of the texts were even accepted, so there is no way for you to judge him based on what people did after he died.

He was a liberal.  He rehabilitated Montini and made him a Card.  when Montini had been banished for being disobedient to Pius XII concerning contacts with the Communists.  John XXIII was the "Typhoid Mary" of the Crisis in the Church.  He lit the fuse that blew the rafters off the Church. 

Blessed John XXIII Ora pro Nobis.

(11-25-2012, 05:48 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-25-2012, 05:34 PM)maso Wrote: [ -> ]Do you really think the suppression of the Devil's Advocate may help in exposing the supposed virtues of a candidate to the sainthood? On the contrary don't you believe that while nobody is objecting to a canonization, this one might be later reckoned as botched if unknow or dismissed facts would surface on controversial sides of the candidate?

You're misinformed that there are never people who give testimony against a candidate. The Church did fine without a "devil's advocate" for more years than it had one, so I am not distressed.

Yes, there were canonizations through public acclamations, there were also bishops who canonized by their own authority in the Church's primitive times. In my opinion, the DA's job was created to avoid too many abuses, so I am more distressed than you are that we may see these abuses to come back since it was suppressed by JPII. The case of Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer is emblematic.

(11-26-2012, 12:44 PM)maso Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-25-2012, 05:48 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-25-2012, 05:34 PM)maso Wrote: [ -> ]Do you really think the suppression of the Devil's Advocate may help in exposing the supposed virtues of a candidate to the sainthood? On the contrary don't you believe that while nobody is objecting to a canonization, this one might be later reckoned as botched if unknow or dismissed facts would surface on controversial sides of the candidate?

You're misinformed that there are never people who give testimony against a candidate. The Church did fine without a "devil's advocate" for more years than it had one, so I am not distressed.

Yes, there were canonizations through public acclamations, there were also bishops who canonized by their own authority in the Church's primitive times. In my opinion, the DA's job was created to avoid too many abuses, so I am more distressed than you are that we may see these abuses to come back since it was suppressed by JPII. The case of Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer is emblematic.

Emblematic of what exactly?  Are canonizations infallible or not?  Has the Church defected or not?  What say you?