FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: What if there was a split?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
This is a question that I have been asking myself. I know it's hypothetical but it weighs on my mind. What if the Church was to split? Would we have to follow PF even if his teachings go against 2000 years of Catholic teaching? Would we not be in the same situation as Bishop Lefebvre or even the Orthodox?
 
Things are getting worse not better. My wife is a fallen away Catholic. I almost had her back in the Church until all this confusion. This is all making me sick. You can tell me to pray for the Church all you want, it's still depressing.
(02-04-2018, 10:42 PM)BobR67 Wrote: [ -> ]This is a question that I have been asking myself. I know it's hypothetical but it weighs on my mind. What if the Church was to split? Would we have to follow PF even if his teachings go against 2000 years of Catholic teaching? Would we not be in the same situation as Bishop Lefebvre or even the Orthodox?
 
Things are getting worse not better. My wife is a fallen away Catholic. I almost had her back in the Church until all this confusion. This is all making me sick. You can tell me to pray for the Church all you want, it's still depressing.

Archbishop Lefebvre and the Orthodox are two wildly disparate situations.

The latter left the Church because of political issues with the West, and justified it by rejecting the Petrine Primacy. That is schism.

The latter refused to leave the Church or reject the validity of the successor of St. Peter. When the other bishops and Popes, seemed to begin accepting what was contrary to what the Magisterium had always taught, in such doubt he preferred to take the perennial understanding over the novel doctrine which seems to teach heresy. In doing so he had to disobey the Pope, but never rejected his authority, nor rejected the Petrine Primacy. This is not schism.

The latter is precisely what we see happening now, which played out in the case of the SSPX as a microcosm. 

Statements like the Fraternal Correction and bishops of Kazakhstan are perfectly in line with what happened with the SSPX, expanded to a larger scale. It's how Catholics have always behaved toward priests, bishops and even Pope when these have taught or commanded what seemed contrary to the Faith.

Church History provides plentiful examples.
So will Traditional Catholics be forced to choose? Do we go where the Pope goes? Because it seems to me that more Cardinals and Bishops are supporters and not decenters (I hope I'm wrong). 
I guess I have to look at it as I did when Obama was president. I respected the Office but not the man. In a Papal election the people have no say, we are at the mercy of the Cardinals. 

I was going to delet what I just wrote, when I realized it is all up to G-d not the Cardinals who is elected Pope. But I want to be honest on how I'm thinking. "Oh yhee of little faith." Popped into my head when I was writing. Guess I have to go to confession.
(02-05-2018, 07:41 AM)BobR67 Wrote: [ -> ]So will Traditional Catholics be forced to choose? Do we go where the Pope goes? Because it seems to me that more Cardinals and Bishops are supporters and not decenters (I hope I'm wrong). 
I guess I have to look at it as I did when Obama was president. I respected the Office but not the man. In a Papal election the people have no say, we are at the mercy of the Cardinals. 

I was going to delet what I just wrote, when I realized it is all up to G-d not the Cardinals who is elected Pope. But I want to be honest on how I'm thinking. "Oh yhee of little faith." Popped into my head when I was writing. Guess I have to go to confession.

Catholics keep the Faith. They follow the Pope when he is the guardian of that Faith.

Church History shows plenty of times when the Pope, teaching as a private doctor and not as the head of the Church not only make mistakes but even held doctrines which he was told were hertical, and afterward were condemned as heretical.

Catholics did not follow him into such errors, because they learned, knew and kept the Faith. That is all we are asked to do.

As a side note why are you using the term "G-d"?

That comes from a legalistic Jewish practice by which they were scrupulous to never allow any paper with God's name to be thrown out, as it was considered too holy. God's name was not "God", but represented by the tetragrammon YHWH (since Hebrew did not mark its vowels) which was "Yahweh" or something similar.

When translating into English, Jews started using the term "G-d" to keep up that idea, even though God's name is not "God".

Never has the Christian practice been to do this. In fact we are happy and consider it a blessing to be able to use the real Holy Name of the Savior, Jesus. Yet we are not so legalistic and scrupulous as to worry that simply a written use of that term must be preserved and not discarded, and even some people name children after Jesus.

That is one way that Christ freed us from the useless "traditions of men".
(02-05-2018, 04:55 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2018, 07:41 AM)BobR67 Wrote: [ -> ]So will Traditional Catholics be forced to choose? Do we go where the Pope goes? Because it seems to me that more Cardinals and Bishops are supporters and not decenters (I hope I'm wrong). 
I guess I have to look at it as I did when Obama was president. I respected the Office but not the man. In a Papal election the people have no say, we are at the mercy of the Cardinals. 

I was going to delet what I just wrote, when I realized it is all up to G-d not the Cardinals who is elected Pope. But I want to be honest on how I'm thinking. "Oh yhee of little faith." Popped into my head when I was writing. Guess I have to go to confession.

Catholics keep the Faith. They follow the Pope when he is the guardian of that Faith.

Church History shows plenty of times when the Pope, teaching as a private doctor and not as the head of the Church not only make mistakes but even held doctrines which he was told were hertical, and afterward were condemned as heretical.

Catholics did not follow him into such errors, because they learned, knew and kept the Faith. That is all we are asked to do.

As a side note why are you using the term "G-d"?

That comes from a legalistic Jewish practice by which they were scrupulous to never allow any paper with God's name to be thrown out, as it was considered too holy. God's name was not "God", but represented by the tetragrammon YHWH (since Hebrew did not mark its vowels) which was "Yahweh" or something similar.

When translating into English, Jews started using the term "G-d" to keep up that idea, even though God's name is not "God".

Never has the Christian practice been to do this. In fact we are happy and consider it a blessing to be able to use the real Holy Name of the Savior, Jesus. Yet we are not so legalistic and scrupulous as to worry that simply a written use of that term must be preserved and not discarded, and even some people name children after Jesus.

That is one way that Christ freed us from the useless "traditions of men".
My Byzantine grandmother taught me to write God that way.