Contradictions of the modern popes
(08-17-2012, 02:19 AM)kingofspades Wrote: The fanatism and stubborn 'hey wanna pick a fight' mentality in this topic is so dominant, that nobody even wants to think about the topic as such.  :crazy:

And mr TrentCath, look in the mirror: what do you think others here (including me) think about the SSPX when the society is linked with this kind of theoligical street fighting? Consider the possiblity that the impression could arise that we cannot have a normal conversation with SSPX people? Too much fanatism gives the SSPX a bad name. People might think "it look so holy when we attend Mass, but inderneath i's a community of insulting, yelling, hammering, fanatic people"! Not to say what less balanced people might think.

In the end it's all a waste of energy, your whole topic. You'd better used that time for praying.

May I ask you: what theoligical studies did you make? Do you have a PhD or so?

Father, you never answered my question about Pope John XXII, unless I'm much mistaken.  Until you do, please refrain from tarring everyone who attends an SSPX Mass with a broad brush, or claiming that no one wants to think about the topic as such.

At the same time, you need to recognize that people who attend an SSPX Mass are passionate about their religion.  That's a good thing.  Now, sometimes it needs to be better tempered by prudence, charity, etc., but the raw material, the impetus, if you will, for a holy life is there.  I would appreciate it if you would recognize that such is indeed the case.
Reply

(08-17-2012, 02:22 AM)Parmandur Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 09:14 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 04:16 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Jayne will, based on past behavior, really regret having goaded you, and publicly apologize. 

Busted.  I was goading him, wasn't I?  Thanks for calling me on this. This behaviour is really seriously wrong.  Basically, it is being an accessory to sin.  I have to publicly apologize and go to Confession.

I am very sorry, TrentCath.  Please forgive me.

Eh, no problem.  I am guilty of the same thing.

Thank you for forgiving me.
Reply
(08-17-2012, 10:49 AM)JayneK Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 02:22 AM)Parmandur Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 09:14 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 04:16 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Jayne will, based on past behavior, really regret having goaded you, and publicly apologize. 

Busted.  I was goading him, wasn't I?  Thanks for calling me on this. This behaviour is really seriously wrong.  Basically, it is being an accessory to sin.  I have to publicly apologize and go to Confession.

I am very sorry, TrentCath.  Please forgive me.

Eh, no problem.  I am guilty of the same thing.

Thank you for forgiving me.

I am also sorry for all that I've done and forgive everyone involved.
Reply
(08-17-2012, 08:06 AM)kingofspades Wrote: Sorry mr TrentCath, but I hope this reaction of running away is not typical for the SSPX, because in that case Abp Müller and the Ecclesia Dei commission have no longer a job to do for them, and in that case your future is of course outside the Church of Rome. If you're fine with that, a pity of course, but it's up to them.

I am here to learn a lot about what traditional views are, but unfortunately I see a lot of blind fanatism. Not very inspiring, I must admit.  :crazy:

Father, at first I formed a negative opinion of the SSPX from my interactions with its supporters here in the forum, but my real life interactions have been different.  I attend Mass at an SSPX chapel quite often because that is usually the only access I have to a weekday TLM.  From these experiences, I saw their piety, devotion and kindness.  It often has been inspiring.

A discussion forum like this can bring out the worst in some people.  I am sure I am not this argumentative in real life.  (But don't ask my husband  :grin: )  I don't think it is a good setting to form fair or realistic judgments of the groups that are represented here.
Reply
After all the personal problems not solved  :(( , back on topic.

What this whole topic and the endless quotes by the OP bring, is not just a mess of all kind of 'evidence' texts, but also does it make clear that those agreeing with it have no clue at all what the recent Popes, Pope Benedict and Abp Müller want to say. Maybe some of you can also read German, if so, please read this. http://www.summorum-pontificum.de/themen...ition.html

It's about the dynamic theology of tradition, and the backgrounds of the thinking of V2 and the Popes. It is not helpful to quote from the whole oeuvre of Popes whatever you find, or simply cut and paste what you find on websites or so. The reason why I asked for the theological status of the OP is, because the way he acts, I can not imagine him being an academic theologian. Not to insult anybody, but the theological methodology is simply not correct or at least very onesided. Proving something is not just quoting a lot, but carefully distinguish the relative importance of the quotes. Which I miss completely.

It's more looking like "We hate religious freedom, and look: Oh, what this naughy Pope said when he met ... from that nasty other church. " State your own prejudice with random quotations. Pffft that is really bad theology! If I would have done so at university... they would have had a good laugh!

When Abp Müller speaks about the dogmatic implications of the V2 documents, and giving no room for rejection for SSPX, it is because Müller is a typical German theologian from the 'Ratzinger-school', knowing exactly where V2 documents are based on earlier traditions, even when it seems to create new theology. THAT, knowing what lies behind every quote, is so much more important than the quote as such. 'Clean' theology is doing like that. Maybe I have studied too much theology in Germany, which I did, not to understand why the Pope and Müller act like they do. It's a way of thinking where everything is connected with other elements, and the German language is almost made for theological distincions, it seems.

That is also the reason why I can unfortunately not translate the article I advise you to read. Neither German nor English is my native language and the fine theological distincions are so precise, that translating them would make things even more complicated.

What I also want to say is this. I am not what some might think, a blind idiot who wants blind obedience for SSPX, trying to terrorize SSPX members here or just stir the pot. It is true however that I, even while I am traditionally minded, NOT reject V2. I am a priest who wholeheartedly love the theology our Holy Father teaches, and I agree fully with the way Abp Müller is proceeding. With REASON. Those who can read the excellent summarizing article in German, will understand. I am really convinced that the theology of SSPX is lacking, and I understand the conflict with the Ecclesia Dei really well. And because I also see so much narrowminded fanatism, simple yelling 'modernism' to everything they dislike with no clue about V2 theology backgrounds, I express my thoughts the way I do, and meanwhile I know, 6 days on FE, that more than one member here is glad to hear another sound, instead of everyday the same simple anti-V2-song on the repeat-button.

But OK, I also understand that some members here have heard already enough from me. Anybody who doesn't absolutely rejects V2 is already suspect or anathema. Against that kind of blindness, I cannot argue.
Reply
(08-17-2012, 11:29 AM)kingofspades Wrote: After all the personal problems not solved  :(( , back on topic.

What this whole topic and the endless quotes by the OP bring, is not just a mess of all kind of 'evidence' texts, but also does it make clear that those agreeing with it have no clue at all what the recent Popes, Pope Benedict and Abp Müller want to say. Maybe some of you can also read German, if so, please read this. http://www.summorum-pontificum.de/themen...ition.html

It's about the dynamic theology of tradition, and the backgrounds of the thinking of V2 and the Popes. It is not helpful to quote from the whole oeuvre of Popes whatever you find, or simply cut and paste what you find on websites or so. The reason why I asked for the theological status of the OP is, because the way he acts, I can not imagine him being an academic theologian. Not to insult anybody, but the theological methodology is simply not correct or at least very onesided. Proving something is not just quoting a lot, but carefully distinguish the relative importance of the quotes. Which I miss completely.

It's more looking like "We hate religious freedom, and look: Oh, what this naughy Pope said when he met ... from that nasty other church. " State your own prejudice with random quotations. Pffft that is really bad theology! If I would have done so at university... they would have had a good laugh!

When Abp Müller speaks about the dogmatic implications of the V2 documents, and giving no room for rejection for SSPX, it is because Müller is a typical German theologian from the 'Ratzinger-school', knowing exactly where V2 documents are based on earlier traditions, even when it seems to create new theology. THAT, knowing what lies behind every quote, is so much more important than the quote as such. 'Clean' theology is doing like that. Maybe I have studied too much theology in Germany, which I did, not to understand why the Pope and Müller act like they do. It's a way of thinking where everything is connected with other elements, and the German language is almost made for theological distincions, it seems.

That is also the reason why I can unfortunately not translate the article I advise you to read. Neither German nor English is my native language and the fine theological distincions are so precise, that translating them would make things even more complicated.

What I also want to say is this. I am not what some might think, a blind idiot who wants blind obedience for SSPX, trying to terrorize SSPX members here or just stir the pot. It is true however that I, even while I am traditionally minded, NOT reject V2. I am a priest who wholeheartedly love the theology our Holy Father teaches, and I agree fully with the way Abp Müller is proceeding. With REASON. Those who can read the excellent summarizing article in German, will understand. I am really convinced that the theology of SSPX is lacking, and I understand the conflict with the Ecclesia Dei really well. And because I also see so much narrowminded fanatism, simple yelling 'modernism' to everything they dislike with no clue about V2 theology backgrounds, I express my thoughts the way I do, and meanwhile I know, 6 days on FE, that more than one member here is glad to hear another sound, instead of everyday the same simple anti-V2-song on the repeat-button.

But OK, I also understand that some members here have heard already enough from me. Anybody who doesn't absolutely rejects V2 is already suspect or anathema. Against that kind of blindness, I cannot argue.

And what is becoming painfully clear Father is that you cannot actually even attempt to show why the contradictions made by the popes are not contradictions. The most direct route to correcting those who you believe in error would simply be to do this instead you engage in ad hominems and slander, why? I rather suspect it's because you cant actually show what you want us all to believe on blind faith, namely that there are no contradictions. The rest of your post consists of sophisms, maybe you would have been laughed at university if someone had argued like this and? This assertion is pointless, it proves nothing.  You also use strawmen and caricatures 'what this nasty pope said....', in fact you use very little rational argument instead relying on sophistry to obfuscate the truth, the truth that cannot be denied, the popes have made manymany times statements which are scandalous, offensive to pious ears, which lend themselves to being badly interpreted and in some cases have made statements so brash that only the most naive person would not label them as at least proximate to heresy. Moreover your argument proves too much, even if all the blame lies in naughty Sspxers misunderstanding the popes, the popes cannot escape some blame. Why? Under the old system of censuses, statements could be condemned as being rash, badly expressed, lending themselves to bad interpretations etc.... Now unless you believe all the SSPX and all those who see problems in papal statements are stupid or in bad faith, you must accept that on many occasions the popes would have fallen under these censuses! If something is so ambiguous, so badly expressed that it can lend itself to bad interpretations, that itself is censurable, even if something isn't absolutely wrong but merely offends piety, that is censurable, and of course if something is scandalous its scandalous, full stop.

Reply
(08-17-2012, 11:29 AM)kingofspades Wrote: What I also want to say is this. I am not what some might think, a blind idiot who wants blind obedience for SSPX, trying to terrorize SSPX members here or just stir the pot. It is true however that I, even while I am traditionally minded, NOT reject V2. I am a priest who wholeheartedly love the theology our Holy Father teaches, and I agree fully with the way Abp Müller is proceeding. With REASON. Those who can read the excellent summarizing article in German, will understand. I am really convinced that the theology of SSPX is lacking, and I understand the conflict with the Ecclesia Dei really well. And because I also see so much narrowminded fanatism, simple yelling 'modernism' to everything they dislike with no clue about V2 theology backgrounds, I express my thoughts the way I do, and meanwhile I know, 6 days on FE, that more than one member here is glad to hear another sound, instead of everyday the same simple anti-V2-song on the repeat-button.

But OK, I also understand that some members here have heard already enough from me. Anybody who doesn't absolutely rejects V2 is already suspect or anathema. Against that kind of blindness, I cannot argue.

Father, may I remind you that this is supposed to be a Traditional Catholic forum. My guess is that 99.9% of the posts here on FE would not be allowed on the NO forums like Catholic Answers - the reason for this is simple, it's because the NO have different beliefs than Traditional Catholics have. That stems from the different way we pray. NO's believe how they pray and trads believe how they pray - and those somewhere in the middle you will find agree with you on pretty much whatever you post more often than not.

Most trads here know that the SSPX is like a dirty word when spoken from those who are or have a NO bent, it has been that way since 1970 at least and some of us are *really* sick and tired of the slander. So in case you are here to converse with traditionalists because you have something in common, you'll find pretty much the whole tank to converse with - -otoh, if you are here to convert traditionalists or to show them the error of being uncompromising, you should not expect the same comradery.

My .02   

Reply
(08-17-2012, 12:37 PM)Stubborn Wrote: Father, may I remind you that this is supposed to be a Traditional Catholic forum . . .

I think part of the problem is that the definition of "traditional Catholic" has mutated over the years, so those traditional Catholics of the "traditional persuasion" find those of the Summorum Pontificum persuasion (conservative Catholics) to be quite hostile to the traditional persuasion. Tradition as a obligation and tradition as a (strong) preference will never see eye to eye.
Reply
(08-17-2012, 12:57 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-17-2012, 12:37 PM)Stubborn Wrote: Father, may I remind you that this is supposed to be a Traditional Catholic forum . . .

I think part of the problem is that the definition of "traditional Catholic" has mutated over the years, so those traditional Catholics of the "traditional persuasion" find those of the Summorum Pontificum persuasion (conservative Catholics) to be quite hostile to the traditional persuasion. Tradition as a obligation and tradition as a (strong) preference will never see eye to eye.

Well said.

The fruits of V2.  :'((
Reply
(08-17-2012, 12:08 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Under the old system of censuses, statements could be condemned as being rash, badly expressed, lending themselves to bad interpretations etc....  Now unless you believe all the SSPX and all those who see problems in papal statements are stupid or in bad faith, you must accept that on many occasions the popes would have fallen under these censuses!  If something is so ambiguous, so badly expressed that it can lend itself to bad interpretations, that itself is censurable, even if something isn't absolutely wrong but merely offends piety, that is censurable, and of course if something is scandalous its scandalous, full stop.

Very good point, TrentCath.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03532a.htm (Theological Censures)

Unfortunately, the Church has failed to teach clearly and precisely on several important matters, and such a state of affairs is lamentable in and of itself, regardless of the assumed orthodoxy of the recent Pontiffs and of Vatican II.  This is so because the Church was not wanting in precisely explaining her teachings before the Council, wherein she still adhered to scholastic terminology, but dropped it during and after that same council.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)