(07-17-2012, 07:39 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 07:16 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 07:02 PM)Stubborn Wrote: I'm surprised no one has mentioned anything about going to this NO to make their Sunday Obligation, certainly this qualifies for that no?

I wouldn't go, even if it were my only option for Mass.

Suppose this priest was elected the next pope, you wouldn't go to his NO then to make your Sunday Obligation?

Stop baiting.  You know perfectly well that in order to make a Mass (NO or TLM) valid you need correct form, matter and intention.  All those are doubtful at best in this situation.  Those of us that support going to the NO to fufill our Sunday obligation (which we don't lightly desregard because its a precept of the Church!!) would stay far away from this attrocity. 
(07-17-2012, 05:10 PM)JayneK Wrote: Removing a bishop is drastic and difficult.  In most situations, it is better to wait until he gets to retirement age. (The bad ones are out at the first opportunity; the good ones stay in longer.)  The new bishops appointed under Benedict have tended to be of much better quality.  The Pope does understand how important this is and spends an significant amount of time researching possible appointees.

You sound like an expert consultant in the management of the Church, who knows all about how difficult it is to remove bishops, what the best strategy is to deal with them, etc.  You have inside knowledge, based upon some extensive surveys or other to which nobody else has access, which show that the newer appointments "tend to be of much better quality" (without defining "better quality", which could mean anything from their ability with financial accounting to their skill at hiding sodomite clerics).  You also have inside knolwedge of the process Benedict personally engages in to research each of the men he appoints to ensure this "better quality" that you detect.

That's what you sound like.

But I don't believe it.  I think you make it up as you go along.
(07-17-2012, 06:31 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 05:52 PM)GottmitunsAlex Wrote: Hence the need to call them out and demand an explanation right then and there. Let those men clarify their statements/writings/declarations. No big deal.

Haven't you started enough threads on this topic?  Do you have to derail other threads for going on about it too?

Actually, you derailed this thread.  You dragged it onto the question of Benedict's responsibility for these evils, and when called out for that derailing, you admitted it and described it as a pre-emptive strike.
(07-17-2012, 08:47 PM)JayneK Wrote: He is doing something.  He is a long-term thinker who is after lasting results rather than quick results.  In 20 years it will be clearer just how much he accomplished.

You can't compare the Latin Mass which has his full approval with a Mass that is violating the rubrics.

He is indeed a long-term thinker.  He hasn't changed his thinking in fifty years, and is still convinced that the Holy Ghost wrought Vatican II and the New Springtime that resulted, and he is continuing to encourage the charismatics and other weirdos as if their heresy is evidence of new life in the Church.

As for rubrics, there are none in the Conciliar church.  The rubrics of the old missal were LAWS, with penalties attached for their violation.  The "rubrics" of the Conciliar church are guidelines, never enforced, not compulsory.  They exist so people like you can imagine that the Modernists believe in law, that there is law, and it is enforced (it isn't).

The only enforcement that goes on is the sole principle of the tyranny which passes for the government of the Church - AUTHORITY.

That's why trads are "schismatics" and less well-disguised Modernists are "dissidents".  There's no objective law, just as there's no objective rule of faith, just arbitrary authority which bullies people who refuse to accept the heresies and novelties of Vatican II.
(07-17-2012, 09:00 PM)JayneK Wrote: Of course it is important.  So is dealing with dissident theologians.  So is reviving catechesis.  So is taking a stand against secularism.  So is cleaning out abusive priests.  Etc.  

Jayne, you can't deal with heretics by making them head of the CDF.  You cannot "revive catechesis" (I presume you mean, preach the true faith) by imposing the "Catechism of the Catholic Church".  You cannot take a stand against secularism by opening the windows to the world, adopting the principles of the French Revoltuion, and praising secularists left right and centre.  You can't clean out abusive priests by maintaining liberals as bishops, who have a record of protecting and promoting those abusers.  Levada was an example, of course.  Muller is too.
I hope our Pontiff has a strategy in mind, because to an outsider looking in, it seems like he's doing a whole lot of nothing.

If the SSPX can be hammered on, so can liturgical abusers. Maybe the Holy Father just needs to hear that more often. Part of why I keep him in my prayers.
Quote:That's why trads are "schismatics" and less well-disguised Modernists are "dissidents".  There's no objective law, just as there's no objective rule of faith, just arbitrary authority which bullies people who refuse to accept the heresies and novelties of Vatican II.

This is a very good assessment of the curren situation.

To get back to Masses with rocks (not the holy Mass rock shrines of Ireland), the worse thing I have seen is the Holy Spirit Newman Center of Berkeley (Berserkely), CA. Google and see for yourselves. Back when I was a "Roamin' Catlick" I knew of this place because it has the latest Mass time.

Still saw plenty of bizarre things in San Fran-psycho, including one incident with two drag queens, beginning my path to trad-dom.
In the words of Bp Sanborn, the pope can chop off anyone's head(meaning fire/remove).  There is no need for an advisory meeting of the Cardinals, or consideration of what the national conference of that nations bishops would say.  Like someone already said, better choices of late-by whose measurement and what standard.  Perhaps different by degree, but not necessarily kind.
  Bishop Fellay was ordained at 24 and consecrated at 30 and made SG at, I believe, 36.
  The rock presbyter at least makes it easy for those that still have the faith to not choose him to go to.  Sadly, the more conservative and by the book the NO is, the more people flock to that place.
  It reminds me of what an older traditional priest said upon seeing the NO done reverently while on pilgrimmage at St Mary Majors.  The priest saying the NO was doing it reverently and all.  Sadly, that is what will keep some there.  In a sense, it can be more dangerous than the rock "Mass" and other aberrations of the NO.  At least you can see that these things, in some cases, go against the book. 
  Pope St Pius X, upon ascertaining the facts around the rector of Dunwoodie inviting and permitting a Protestant minister to come and speak to the seminarians, removed him immediately as rector of the seminary and replaced him quickly.  He did this without "consulting" with the Archbishop of New York.  He did not put it up for a vote and did not worry about the wave it could cause. 
  Pope St Pius X knew very well that since he had a massive responsibility before God and that he would have to act when serious problems came to his attention.  One can ask, based on the evidence available, does Benedict XVI and did JPII do what they could with what they knew?

(07-17-2012, 09:11 PM)TS Aquinas Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 08:48 PM)JayneK Wrote: How does he find these pious men?

I would think a great start would be the FSSP. How about Augustinian Canons? Faithful Dominicans? Brothers in the Franciscans of the Immaculate? Trappists? Individual Diocesan priests like mine who takes it upon themselves to make the TLM readily accessible? Pious men aren't exact inconspicuous if you know where to look and I'm sure Benedict knows of them. The question is, why elect men like Mueller who's orthodoxy is in question from individual theologians, FSSP and SSPX when you have access to a plethora of ready and able traditional and fully orthodox priests, friars, monks, etc...

The Pope has few opportunities to "hang out" with ordinary Catholics.  I do not think it would be easy for him to get to know people well enough to identify these pious men. 

From what I have read, a major factor in his choice of ++Muller is that he knows him personally.  The Pope knows him and  trusts him to support his policies.
(07-17-2012, 09:15 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 08:54 PM)JayneK Wrote: The situation in seminaries seems to be starting to turn around.  At least it is around here and I've heard others say this about their areas.  But a kid in seminary is not likely to be bishop material, even if he is completely orthodox.  The position needs maturity and experience.

Impossible. Whoever thinks NO seminaries are turning around is simply lazy or don't want to see what *continues* to happen in the NO....................do you suppose the NO seminary of the rock star priest started turning around?

Some turn around, hey?

When I was working on my MDiv, many of my fellow students were seminarians.  I think I have a pretty good grasp of what my local seminaries are like.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)