John Paul 2 a saint???
(09-12-2012, 02:10 PM)Guardian Wrote:
(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.

So why didn't you become a Priest? hmmm?

Just so you know, there are a lot of people who try and don't have the vocation.  I am one, I believe Melkite was another.  And I definitely agree with voxx, that I would love to worship and study God for a living.  Nonetheless, for whatever reason, God has other plans for me.
Reply
(09-12-2012, 11:04 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(09-12-2012, 10:19 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: 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. 

IMO, the "post-conciliar" in "post-conciliar Church" is just an adjective and fine in itself, but it's often used to mean capital P, capital C "Post-Conciliar Church," as if the Church before and after that unfortunate Council are two different things, KWIM? Statements like "anything from the post-conciliar Church is not to be trusted" is material heresy, plain and simple. Changing that to "I don't trust a lot of what comes from our hierarchs in the post-conciliar era" or something makes more sense, isn't as scandalous, doesn't go against the Creed, etc. People are just sloppy with language around here quite a bit and it bugs me.

"Newchurch", IMO, is a term that can only logically be used by sedevacantists.

In any case, it'd still be a good thing for people to be more careful in how they speak of "the Church" -- "conciliar," "post-conciliar" whatever.  I mean, we are talking about the very Bride of Christ, made one with Him through marriage. I.e., we're talking about the Body of Christ. That's serious stuff.

Vox is absolutely right about this stuff.  The way the noun "Church" is used by traditionalists in general is pretty deplorable.

This is not to say that I don't think there are very serious dangers in what our modern churchmen like to call "full communion".  I do.  But the problem still has to be with the churchmen-- not with the Church.  That is impossible.
Reply
Allow me to second VoxClamantis' compliments to Father on celebrating the TLM, on trying to be a holy priest, etc.

We still disagree on a lot, and I think you paint the SSPX with a brush that is too broad and too dark in color.  Nonetheless, God bless you.
Reply
(09-13-2012, 10:38 PM)tmw89 Wrote:
(09-13-2012, 07:24 PM)JMartyr Wrote: Please clarify this quote , Father?
"Even when we strongly disagree with teachings or decisions, even those ex cathedra, it's not a sin as such."

I'd still like to see a clarification on that point as well, JMartyr... and in case user "kingofspades" has not seen it already, I should especially like to learn in such a clarification how to reconcile the aforementioned quote with the content in the following post: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...sg33796688

(and in case anyone finds the material I cited earlier in English as doubtful due to the web-source of the translation, I can provide the original Latin from my copy of the 1951 Imprimi Potest'd, Imprimatur'd book)

Father, you're about to be examined by the dreaded Fish Eaters' Inquisition. Beware!
Reply
(09-13-2012, 11:28 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(09-13-2012, 10:38 PM)tmw89 Wrote:
(09-13-2012, 07:24 PM)JMartyr Wrote: Please clarify this quote , Father?
"Even when we strongly disagree with teachings or decisions, even those ex cathedra, it's not a sin as such."

I'd still like to see a clarification on that point as well, JMartyr... and in case user "kingofspades" has not seen it already, I should especially like to learn in such a clarification how to reconcile the aforementioned quote with the content in the following post: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...sg33796688

(and in case anyone finds the material I cited earlier in English as doubtful due to the web-source of the translation, I can provide the original Latin from my copy of the 1951 Imprimi Potest'd, Imprimatur'd book)

Father, you're about to be examined by the dreaded Fish Eaters' Inquisition. Beware!

:LOL:

I don't think a request for clarification on the point is out of line.  Do you think otherwise, Vetus?
Reply
(09-13-2012, 11:32 PM)tmw89 Wrote:
(09-13-2012, 11:28 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(09-13-2012, 10:38 PM)tmw89 Wrote:
(09-13-2012, 07:24 PM)JMartyr Wrote: Please clarify this quote , Father?
"Even when we strongly disagree with teachings or decisions, even those ex cathedra, it's not a sin as such."

I'd still like to see a clarification on that point as well, JMartyr... and in case user "kingofspades" has not seen it already, I should especially like to learn in such a clarification how to reconcile the aforementioned quote with the content in the following post: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...sg33796688

(and in case anyone finds the material I cited earlier in English as doubtful due to the web-source of the translation, I can provide the original Latin from my copy of the 1951 Imprimi Potest'd, Imprimatur'd book)

Father, you're about to be examined by the dreaded Fish Eaters' Inquisition. Beware!

:LOL:

I don't think a request for clarification on the point is out of line.  Do you think otherwise, Vetus?

No, not really. I was just being facetious. I welcome free inquiry.
Reply
If john Paul was such a modernist, then how you explain the removal of the right to be called 'Catholic' theologian from Hans Kung and  Charles Curran?
Reply
(09-13-2012, 11:42 PM)Poche Wrote: If john Paul was such a modernist, then how you explain the removal of the right to be called 'Catholic' theologian from Hans Kung and  Charles Curran?

2 Catholics out of 1 billion were censured?  Wow.
Reply
(09-13-2012, 11:46 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(09-13-2012, 11:42 PM)Poche Wrote: If john Paul was such a modernist, then how you explain the removal of the right to be called 'Catholic' theologian from Hans Kung and  Charles Curran?

2 Catholics out of 1 billion were censured?  Wow.

To be fair, it's not like 1 billion needed censure...

...just the vast majority of post-conciliar theologians whose heretical ideas have poisoned those 1 billion.
Reply
(09-13-2012, 11:42 PM)Poche Wrote: If john Paul was such a modernist, then how you explain the removal of the right to be called 'Catholic' theologian from Hans Kung and  Charles Curran?

Remember that modernism is NOT definitively overt.  While some modernists may be flamboyant modernism with their antics, most aren't.  Just as one good act does not redeem a man from a lifetime of wickedness, *some* "good" moves do not make one less of a modernist.  In many cases, they make one more.
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




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)