John Paul 2 a saint???
(09-12-2012, 07:56 AM)kingofspades Wrote: They have delicate positions, and so all kind of theological 'politeness' shouldn't be confused with apostate behaviour. Narrowminded people however, have no feeling for diplomacy in general, and even less for eucumenist feelings. B/W theology looks simple and interesting, but is in the end nothing more than stupidness. And IF such stupidness even leads to schismatic thoughts, sedevacantism, hate and witch hunts against popes, every catholic should know from which side the sound comes, or?

I'm more worried about theological orthodoxy, because the theological 'politeness' of the last 50 years -- giving positive ecclesial status to non-Catholic sects -- appears erroneous to me.

The Church used to say, "Return, and we'll welcome you in our bosom!". Now, however, the message is, "We're so much alike that your separated communities also make up the Church of Christ and you build it up every time you [illicitly] celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass!". From 'conversion' to, 'Eh, it's optional.'

But most importantly, Father, I'm very curious to understand what you mean when you say that "black and white" theology is stupidness.  Do the clear and precise terms, used by the Church for centuries, bother you, or is it the idea that God's revelation to man (i.e. the Catholic Faith) can be broken down into true propositions which have very specific meanings?  I do not get the impression that you're referring to a dogmatism concerning the mere theological opinions which are debated among the Catholic Schools, but rather that you may be attacking the Church's theological conclusions and certainties (the individual truths of the Faith).  Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Reply
(09-12-2012, 10:47 AM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote:
(09-12-2012, 08:56 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(09-12-2012, 07:56 AM)kingofspades Wrote: It's too easy to say: EENS and so every schismatic, protestant, unbaptized, will burn in hell.

Is that what people here believe?

It is NOT what I, the forum owner, believes. SOME people here believe this.

Vox, the above was not the Feeneyite position, but, AFAIK, an accurate way to state the dogma. Maybe the unclarity has to deal with death? If Ny of the aforementioned die as a protestant or schismatic, they will go to Hell. If they convert, or receive baptism, then they cease to be what they were.

I don't care if it is "the Feeneyite position" or not, I don't agree with it. I believe that outside the Church there is no salvation, that Christ came, was crucified, resurrected, and set up a Church whose Sacraments give grace and whose dogmas are 100% true and which would lead to the greatest possible peace on earth if all followed them. I believe that Jesus Christ is the One and Only Savior, the Way, the Truth, and the Life and that no man enters Heaven but by Him and Him alone. I also believe He is God and our Only Judge and that He can save whom he dang well wants to save, whether that person has heard His Name or not, whether that person hears only partial Truths about Him and, so, isn't a visible member of the Body of the Church. If Christ deigns to save a person who is not a member of the body of the Church, then that person is a part of the Soul of the Church. Who those people are who are part of the Soul of the Church without being a part of her Body is completely up to Him and Him alone. It isn't our place to judge others' souls. It is our place to spread the Gospel, receive the Sacraments as we can, and imitate Christ. We are to spread the Gospel because He told us to and because it is the GOOD NEWS ("The Christ has come, has opened the doors to Heaven to us, and has set up a Church where we can receive His grace!") not the BAD NEWS ("anyone who doesn't know this is going to burn in Hellfire forever and ever!"), and not a stick to beat people with. All are called to belong to the body of the Church. It's our job as Christians to teach others the Way. It isn't our job to judge the state of others' souls and to pretend to know whom he has saved, is saving, or will save. Knowing the Gospel and receiving the Sacraments are media of grace (and reflections of it if done in faith), so we need to bring others to the Church to partake. That is done through charity and teaching, not screeching, anger, having a "gang-banging mentality," arrogance, spiritual pride, having a "kill them all; let God sort 'em out" attitude, or otherwise imitating the Pharisees who thought they were better than others.
Reply
(09-12-2012, 12:23 PM)voxxpopulisuxx Wrote: The priblem with the church is cowardly and limpwristed priests....further...why would a priest even be here in FE...this is a wayport for us rough characters who have to work our asses of to survive and raise our familys ...I would love to be a priest where I GET PAID TO WORSHIP AND STUDY GOD.  Fuggettaboutit..father go back and find a heart for the sinner and drop your sanctimonius pride.

Cowardice is a problem in the Church in general, but in the trad world, the main problems that I see, as a person who's run the biggest trad site on the internet for years, are pride and anger. There's a lot of "backlashing" over-reactionary thinking, and it's ugly.

FE is not just a place for "rough characters who have to work our asses off to survive and raise our families." It's a place for all trads ("trads" per the definition on this page: http://www.fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html), including not-so-rough characters, people who aren't raising families, priests, religious, saints, sinners, eggheads, the not-so-bright -- whoever. It's also a place for sincere non-trads to ask questions and to learn about what traditional Catholicism is. God help those in the latter group. Sigh.

If Father is still reading this thread, I apologize for the lack of respect being shown to you. It it painful to see. A kiss to your hand...
Reply
I ment no disrespect of Father in particular...but I disrespected him anyway...mea culpa.
Reply
(09-12-2012, 10:57 AM)ggreg Wrote:
(09-12-2012, 07:56 AM)kingofspades Wrote: Good to know when you place yourself outside the Church, insulting Her by calling her 'crazy' .
Is that clear enough for you?

If you are excommunicating me Father, then I must be doing something right.  More just men have been excommunicated by the concilliar Church that reprobates.  That's puts me in good company.

It's not an insult to call something what it is.  And the doublethink modern Church is insane.

Aside from the four SSPX bishops, who all of us know are just men, which of the following excommunicants from the "concilliar (sic) Church" are likewise just?  The communists?  The racial segregationists?  The abortion enablers?  Who, exactly?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peo...lic_Church
List of people excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church

Bishops in China who joined the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association and ordained bishops without papal approval.[citation needed]
• John XXIII excommunicated Fidel Castro in 1962[citation needed]
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Bishops Antonio de Castro Meyer, Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta for the Ecône Consecrations without papal mandate. Formally declared to have incurred latae sententiae excommunication by Cardinal Bernardin Gantin on July 1, 1988. The excommunications of the latter four were lifted in 2009.[citation needed]
All Catholics who participated in the trial of Archbishop Aloysius Stepinac, which included most of the jury members.
Plaquemines Parish President Leander Perez, Jackson G. Ricau (secretary of the Citizens Council of South Louisiana) and Mrs. B.J. Gaillot, Jr., president of Save Our Nation, Inc., on April 16, 1962 by Archbishop Joseph Rummel of the Archdiocese of New Orleans. They were excommunicated for aggressively opposing the racial integration of Catholic schools in the Archdiocese starting in the 1963-64 school year. Perez and Ricau were later reinstated into the Church following public retractions.[22]
Members of multiple organizations in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska were excommunicated by Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz in March 1996 for promoting positions he deemed "totally incompatible with the Catholic faith". The organizations include Call to Action, Catholics for a Free Choice, Planned Parenthood, the Hemlock Society, the Freemasons, and the Society of St. Pius X. The Vatican later confirmed the excommunication of Call to Action members in November 2006.
Emmanual Milingo, former archbishop of Lusaka, for consecrating four bishops without the papal mandate. Also excommunicated were those receiving consecration.
The Community of the Lady of All Nations for heretical teachings and beliefs after a six-year investigation. The declaration was announced by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops on September 12, 2007.
Rev. Dale Fushek (also laicized by Pope Benedict XVI 02/2010) and Rev. Mark Dippre. Former Priests were issued a Decree of Excommunication by Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted for operating "an opposing ecclesial community" in direct disobedience to orders to refrain from public ministry.
Father Marek Bozek (since laicized by Pope Benedict XVI), and the lay parish board members of St. Stanislaus Kostka Church in St. Louis, Missouri in December 2005 were declared guilty of the ecclesiastical crime of schism by then-Archbishop Raymond Leo Burke. Their excommunication was ratified by the Vatican in May 2008. Four of the parish board members have since reconciled with the Church.
• The Archbishop of Olinda and Recife in Brazil, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, announced the automatic excommunication of the mother and doctors of a nine-year-old girl who had an abortion after being raped and impregnated by her stepfather.
Margaret McBride, a nun, for allowing an abortion. McBride later reconciled with the church and is no longer living in a state of excommunication.
Reply
"Even when we strongly disagree with teachings or decisions, even those ex cathedra, it's not a sin as such."
  How is this right?

       
Reply

(09-12-2012, 10:57 AM)ggreg Wrote: If you are excommunicating me Father, then I must be doing something right.  More just men have been excommunicated by the concilliar Church that reprobates.  That's puts me in good company.

It's not an insult to call something what it is.  And the doublethink modern Church is insane.

"The Church" -- modern or otherwise -- presents no "doublethink." She is holy, pure, the unblemished Bride of Christ. Some of her earthly members are illogical, commit sins, are wrong, have revolutionary attitudes, etc. But to speak of "the Church" in terms that bespeak of error and impurity goes against the Nicene Creed -- the very basic Christian creed the denial of which is heresy.

It's beyond a pet peeve of mine to hear people talk this way. Same with "Conciliar Church" with a capital-C, as if "the Church" isn't the same Church, as if there is more than one Bride of Christ (I can understand that sort of language coming from sedevacantists, in which case I'd expect them to write the "Church" part with a small C). But if one isn't a sede, then to speak of the Church in a way that intimates She is less than holy, one, Catholic, and apostolic is heresy. People do it alllllllllllll the time in trad circles, though, even those who aren't sedevacantist (and typically they're the ones going on the loudest about someone else's alleged heresy LOL)

Anyway, I wish people would not do that and would be more careful with their language. Not only is it heretical, it's scandalous.
Reply
(09-12-2012, 06:02 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: The Church used to say, "Return, and we'll welcome you in our bosom!". Now, however, the message is, "We're so much alike that your separated communities also make up the Church of Christ and you build it up every time you [illicitly] celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass!". From 'conversion' to, 'Eh, it's optional.'

Amen to being perturbed by the dearth of missionary zeal these past 50 years (though I lament the way you put it:  it's not "the Church" that is engaging in misguided ecumenism; it's some of Her earthly members). As we all know, there is One Church, and it's the Catholic Church with the "descendant" of St. Peter at the helm, but I've heard many stories of people actually being turned away from conversion. It's sickening, and I can't begin to understand it.

On the other hand, though, there are some people who understand "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" in a way that goes beyond saying merely that Protestants and other Christians (i.e., those who have valid Baptisms and believe in the Trinity) are wrong in many of their beliefs, are material heretics, are called to become Catholic, and that all who are saved are members of the Catholic Church in some way -- either formally or by being a part of the Soul of the Church, etc. Somewhere in the middle of those two extremes is the Truth.
Reply
(09-12-2012, 09:59 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(09-12-2012, 10:57 AM)ggreg Wrote: If you are excommunicating me Father, then I must be doing something right.  More just men have been excommunicated by the concilliar Church that reprobates.  That's puts me in good company.

It's not an insult to call something what it is.  And the doublethink modern Church is insane.

"The Church" -- modern or otherwise -- presents no "doublethink." She is holy, pure, the unblemished Bride of Christ. Some of her earthly members are illogical, commit sins, are wrong, have revolutionary attitudes, etc. But to speak of "the Church" in terms that bespeak of error and impurity goes against the Nicene Creed -- the very basic Christian creed the denial of which is heresy.

It's beyond a pet peeve of mine to hear people talk this way. Same with "Conciliar Church" with a capital-C, as if "the Church" isn't the same Church, as if there is more than one Bride of Christ (I can understand that sort of language coming from sedevacantists, in which case I'd expect them to write the "Church" part with a small C). But if one isn't a sede, then to speak of the Church in a way that intimates She is less than holy, one, Catholic, and apostolic is heresy. People do it alllllllllllll the time in trad circles, though, even those who aren't sedevacantist (and typically they're the ones going on the loudest about someone else's alleged heresy LOL)

Anyway, I wish people would not do that and would be more careful with their language. Not only is it heretical, it's scandalous.

I understand where you're coming from, but the very term "newchurch" or "(post)conciliar church" exists as a way for trads to differentiate between the Catholic Church and the festering cancer of the novus ordo.  Whether or not the first letter is capitalized is more or less immaterial, I think.  We capitalize the names of other churches that aren't Catholic. 
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
(09-12-2012, 08:51 PM)JMartyr Wrote: "Even when we strongly disagree with teachings or decisions, even those ex cathedra, it's not a sin as such."
  How is this right?

        

I don't think it is right, as disagreement with ex cathedra statements is very serious business... especially considering the two famous ex cathedra statements RE Mary's Immaculate Conception and Assumption are classified as Dogma.

How the Holy Office saw it at least up until V2:

Fr. Sixtus Cartechini, On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them Wrote:(a) Theological note:                                         Dogma.

Equivalent terms:                                               Dogma of faith; de fide, de fide Catholica; de fide divina et Catholica.

Explanation:                                                       A truth proposed by the Church as revealed by God.

Examples:                                                         The Immaculate Conception; all the contents of the Athanasian Creed.

Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Heresy

Effects of denial:                                               Mortal sin committed directly against the virtue of faith, and, if the heresy is outwardly professed, excommunication is automatically incurred and membership of the Church forfeited.

Remarks:                                                           A dogma can be proposed either by a solemn definition of pope or council, or by the Ordinary Magisterium, as in the case of the Athanasian Creed, to which the church has manifested her solemn commitment by its long-standing liturgical and practical use and commendation.

http://www.the-pope.com/theolnotes.html

It is my understanding from the above that internal assent is required, lest a man commit a "Mortal sin . . . directly against the virtue of faith."


So at the very least, JMartyr, the text you quoted is... problematic!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)