Traditional Catholic love and loyalty toward the Pope
#41
(09-15-2012, 11:57 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(09-15-2012, 11:41 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: This just goes back to emotional investment, though.  If someone told me someone I loved was doing something wrong or suspect, I wouldn't blindly ally myself with my loved one.  At least, I hope I wouldn't.  Because that wouldn't be right.  The truth has to prevail. 

You don't have to "blindly" think anything, and you can have respect for someone while disagreeing with him about something or while thinking that something he's doing is wrong or imprudent or whatever.

I completely agree.  What I'm getting at, or what I'd like to see shown is where disrespect has been shown to the Holy Father during the last few days on this topic.  No one has shown that.  The "disrespect" that people have been talking about has been directed towards users who have disagreed with or criticized The Pontiff.  Such criticisms or disagreements might be wrong, but that doesn't make them disrespectful.  And of course, as it stands, I don't think they've been proven to be either. 
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
#42
(09-15-2012, 11:46 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: So, what if one denigrates a person's fatherly capabilities and says a good Catholic is leading people to Hell?

Is that cool? 

As to the former, no that isn't cool insofar as "denigrating" goes. But someone might believe there's reason for thinking someone else isn't a good father. As to the latter, there's a difference between thinking that someone is objectively doing something that can lead others to Hell, and thinking that person intends to do that. But a person who thinks either of these things and has some reason to express it should go about it without undue anger, without namecalling, in charity and with prudence and all that.
Reply
#43
(09-16-2012, 12:01 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote: I completely agree.  What I'm getting at, or what I'd like to see shown is where disrespect has been shown to the Holy Father during the last few days on this topic.  No one has shown that.  The "disrespect" that people have been talking about has been directed towards users who have disagreed with or criticized The Pontiff.  Such criticisms or disagreements might be wrong, but that doesn't make them disrespectful.  And of course, as it stands, I don't think they've been proven to be either. 

See this thread: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...84.10.html -- and be wary of getting caught in a loop LOL
Reply
#44
As an object of serious inquiry, how does one prudently tell another they are a bad father and leading their family to Hell?  Not sure if that falls within the confines of prudence.
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
#45
(09-15-2012, 02:33 PM)JayneK Wrote: On the First Friday of this month, I was struck by a line in the traditional Act of Reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus:
We wish also to make amends for the insults to which Thy Vicar on earth and Thy priests are subjected

While I prayed this with all my heart, I also noticed a certain irony.  In my personal experience, I most often encounter insults to Christ's Vicar and His priests here on this forum.  In the name of traditional Catholicism, some here make the sort of insults and attacks that our ancestors in faith would have made acts of reparation for.

I have also recently become interested in the traditional Abjuration of Heresy, that used to be said by converts on entering the Church.  At the advice of my spiritual director, I have adopted this as a personal devotion.  As a convert, I find much in it that touches me deeply.  One line that stood out when I last read it was:

I promise and swear true obedience to the Roman Pontiff, successor of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles and vicar of Jesus Christ.
me too

For our ancestors in faith, one of the key identifying characteristics of being Catholic was obedience to the Pope.  Yet for many here, their attitude to the Pope is marked by hostility and hyper-criticism.  In the name of tradition, they display an attitude that is foreign to our tradition.  Something is profoundly wrong with this attitude.

Other posters here display the love toward the Pope that I associate with devout and holy people of the past.  Their understanding of being a traditional Catholic actually matches traditional Catholic behaviour.  I suspect these forum members are as troubled as I am by the negativity shown toward our Holy Father.  I have been thinking that I should make acts of reparation when I see such things here.  Perhaps, others who feel as I do would care to join me. 
Reply
#46
(09-15-2012, 11:57 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(09-15-2012, 11:41 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: This just goes back to emotional investment, though.  If someone told me someone I loved was doing something wrong or suspect, I wouldn't blindly ally myself with my loved one.  At least, I hope I wouldn't.  Because that wouldn't be right.  The truth has to prevail. 

You don't have to "blindly" think anything, and you can have respect for someone while disagreeing with him about something or while thinking that something he's doing is wrong or imprudent or whatever.

I definitely agree with this.  And as I've said many times before if the pope is the pope he deserves a certain amount of respect no matter whether he is a good pope or a bad pope (or somewhere in between).

This is why I've been frustrated recently.  We're on a thread questioning the Holy Father's stance on something, comparing it with past papal documents, etc., all very specific and sincere, and then a group of posters show up telling you you're a Protestant, bound for hell, disobedient, etc.

I can understand the anger over calling the pope "JP Poo" and that sort of garbage, but this is serious spiritual and theological inquiry.  The moments that are sarcastic or flippant are nearly always sarcastic toward users who hold odd opinions and force them on the forum, not the Holy Father himself.

Of course, there are times when it is about the Holy Father I'm sure, but I think that's been pretty rare lately.
Reply
#47
(09-16-2012, 12:05 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote: As an object of serious inquiry, how does one prudently tell another they are a bad father and leading their family to Hell?  Not sure if that falls within the confines of prudence.

Dunno. I've never felt the need to do such a thing. But I'd start wih calling the person "friend," for ex., talking sincerely, showing why I disagree with whatever actions and talking about how dangerous I believe they are, telling the person I imagine he has no bad intentions whatsoever and wouldn't want harm to come to his family, refraining from name-calling, listening to responses, letting the other person talk and feel heard, emotionally affirm the person, assuring the person I wasn't judging his value as a human being, maybe acknowledging other good traits he might have, trying to have good timing about it all to begin with, praying for humility, wisdom, and prudence before talking about it to begin with, etc.
Reply
#48
(09-16-2012, 12:01 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(09-15-2012, 11:57 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(09-15-2012, 11:41 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: This just goes back to emotional investment, though.  If someone told me someone I loved was doing something wrong or suspect, I wouldn't blindly ally myself with my loved one.  At least, I hope I wouldn't.  Because that wouldn't be right.  The truth has to prevail. 

You don't have to "blindly" think anything, and you can have respect for someone while disagreeing with him about something or while thinking that something he's doing is wrong or imprudent or whatever.

I completely agree.  What I'm getting at, or what I'd like to see shown is where disrespect has been shown to the Holy Father during the last few days on this topic.  No one has shown that.  The "disrespect" that people have been talking about has been directed towards users who have disagreed with or criticized The Pontiff.  Such criticisms or disagreements might be wrong, but that doesn't make them disrespectful.  And of course, as it stands, I don't think they've been proven to be either. 

Disrespectful?  Flippant?  Sarcastic?  Nope there's no hatred in these quotes.  Move along...move along.  Charity?? What, do you think we're all sissies?

(09-15-2012, 07:38 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: With respect to the Holy Father, I greatly fear that he's wasting his breath at best, and encouraging error among Christians and non-Christians alike at worst.  It's a serious problem, not to be ignored by appeals to diplomacy-- even IF it was likely to work.

The Holy Father is encouraging error.  Check.

(09-15-2012, 06:28 PM)faith3faith Wrote: This is a total denial of Catholic dogma from Benedict XVI.

The Holy Father is a heretic.  Right.

(09-15-2012, 06:04 PM)Walty Wrote: Your right.  The post-Conciliar popes' "contemporary approach" has worked so well.  Look at how well its speaking to modern man where he is.  Mass attendance is dramatically higher than when the Piuses used this naughty, mean, narrow talk.

Of course, it's better to water things down, to make things not sound too Catholic, to make the Church not sound too much like it believes it is the source of all grace on Earth.

Sarcasm?  Thy name is Walty.

(09-15-2012, 05:52 PM)Walty Wrote: Oh, but that's really what he meant.  Bull.  Then why doesn't he say it?  Time to show some fortitude and have Rome's "yes" mean "yes" and it's "no" mean "no".

Disrespectful much?

(09-15-2012, 05:38 PM)Walty Wrote: Notice how none of the defenders of conciliarism have made an argument against the claim that Benedict is espousing something anti-Catholic here.

The Vicar of Christ is a heretic.  Again.

(09-15-2012, 08:50 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote: Maybe the pope should volunteer to die for religious liberty?  Lead a crusade into the holy lands for the God-given right to insult and deny God?

Can't say I'm surprised.  Now we can sit back and wait for the pope's FE guard to right the ship and explain "what he really meant" and how it's hermeneutically congruent. 

What a shame and a waste.

Is that you sarcasm?  Nestled all comfy with that cheap shot at the "pope's FE guard?"  Yes, I believe it is.

(09-15-2012, 09:05 AM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: Hows about some freedom for Tradition from bad Bishops your Holiness?

Maybe a little irony perhaps? 

(09-15-2012, 02:00 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: Thank you for pointing this out, but for many, it will fall on deaf ears. Frankly, I'm tired of the sophistry used to "bail out" Benedict XVI or whomever.

The respect for the Bishop of Rome is fairly oozing from this one.

(09-15-2012, 08:19 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: Just fucking astounded. 

Yes.  Astounded. 
Reply
#49
(09-16-2012, 12:35 AM)DrBombay Wrote:
(09-15-2012, 02:00 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: Thank you for pointing this out, but for many, it will fall on deaf ears. Frankly, I'm tired of the sophistry used to "bail out" Benedict XVI or whomever.

The respect for the Bishop of Rome is fairly oozing from this one.

Here's the entire quote
(09-15-2012, 02:00 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: Thank you for pointing this out, but for many, it will fall on deaf ears. Frankly, I'm tired of the sophistry used to "bail out" Benedict XVI or whomever. When that fails, out come the personal insults and ad hominems, or the threat of "you're going to Hell!"

Benedict knows perfectly well that there is a difference between religious tolerance and religious liberty. So did John Paul II and Paul VI. Those men knew more theology then all of us 100 times over. Yet, the conciliar revolution continues, and error has rights.

It's simply astounding.
Reply
#50
(09-16-2012, 12:35 AM)DrBombay Wrote:
(09-15-2012, 08:19 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: Just fucking astounded. 

Yes.  Astounded. 

Hey Bombay, why don't you use the entire freaking quote?  I'm astounded at Jayne's mental gymnastics to cast the SSPX as bad guys.  Nothing about the Pope in there.  Hell, he isn't even mentioned.

(09-15-2012, 08:19 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: What was the TLM cast as for the two decades prior to the consecrations!?

I have no polite words for you.  The words I can only think of to describe my shock at how utterly...  IGNORANT AND RETARDED your thought, Jayne, would make a sailor blush.  I don't know how people like you survive in your day to day life and somehow go on to achieve things.

Just fucking astounded.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)