A Problem of Traditionalism
#51
St Paul gave us the hint. When he was admonishing one of the mobs he wrote to he said something like: If we, or even angel of light should preach a gospel other than what you have already received; chuck 'em out, or piss 'm off.
Reply
#52
(11-02-2009, 08:26 PM)nsper7 Wrote: Are "Neo-Conservative" Catholics merely modern/progressive wolves in "smells'n'bells" sheeps clothing? etc.) ...

Yes! And you are the best example we've seen on this Trad forum in a long time!!!
Reply
#53
(11-03-2009, 05:16 AM)Oldavid Wrote: St Paul gave us the hint. When he was admonishing one of the mobs he wrote to he said something like: If we, or even angel of light should preach a gospel other than what you have already received; chuck 'em out, or piss 'm off.
which translation is that? I don't recall the apostle Paul being crude in any of my translations.
Reply
#54
Don't take it as a litteral quotation such as you might get from your local Jehovas Witness.
I don't remember the exact words. Nitt-picking is not one of my strongest skills.
Now let's get serious.
The word catholic doesn't mean simply "universal" as they used to define it back in the '50s. More exactly it means "the same in all places and in all times". It's unlikely that the "New Order Church" would want to define itself as catholic in that definition.
More pertinent to our present discussion; would we be justified in ditching much of what was the core of catholicism because some popes said we could?
Reply
#55
(11-03-2009, 06:24 AM)Oldavid Wrote: Don't take it as a litteral quotation such as you might get from your local Jehovas Witness.
I don't remember the exact words. Nitt-picking is not one of my strongest skills.
Now let's get serious.
The word catholic doesn't mean simply "universal" as they used to define it back in the '50s. More exactly it means "the same in all places and in all times". It's unlikely that the "New Order Church" would want to define itself as catholic in that definition.
More pertinent to our present discussion; would we be justified in ditching much of what was the core of catholicism because some popes said we could?
No Pope will ever ditch the core of the faith. Your point is not pertinent to the discussion. It is pertinent to fatuousness.
Do you have proof of this definition of catholic or are you falling victim of propoganda?
St. Ignatius used the word catholic for the first time in 100 AD and it could hardly be stated that he was referring to the vast ages of the church, in fact his context he is talking about an immediacy of time "Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church."
So clearly he is pointing out that the people in unity with the bishop is an expression of the catholic nature of the church with Christ.
I have heard your argument before. It takes as its opening tenet that the modern church is out of step and seperated with the ancient church and therefore to be loyal to the universal church of the long ages we must be seperated from the modern church. The evidence to prove the claim that the church is seperated from the historical church is always flimsy in the extreme, and is advanced by individuals of questionable authority, negligent standing in the church or illicit priests or bishops.
Since when did Catholics listen to gainsayers who are outside of the fold of the church and who multiply their words to draw people out.
This line of reasoning which I have seen so often in traditionalist circles is an utter corruption of what is intended by the term "catholic" in the creed. It is a complete heresy.
The catholic catechism defines the word catholic and does not even mention universality in terms of unity of the ages of the church.
I am not arguing here that the modern church is not in step with the church suffering and the church triumphant. What I am doing is controverting your argument because I know where you are going with it. Your argument incites rejection of ecclesiastical authority and supervision. Not only is it fatuous and naive, it is also seditious and divisive.
Stand down soldier. 
Reply
#56
Verbose indeed,
But what are we ordinary folk to make of it?
Either it is concordant with original Christianity or it is not.
Jesus did say  something like ; Heaven and earth may pass away but my words will  not pass away.
Reply
#57
(11-03-2009, 08:22 AM)Oldavid Wrote: Verbose indeed,
But what are we ordinary folk to make of it?
Either it is concordant with original Christianity or it is not.
Jesus did say  something like ; Heaven and earth may pass away but my words will  not pass away.
It is absolutely concordant. Have you read the catechism? Please point out to me where you believe that the modern teachings are discordant. The only reason that ordinary folk get confused is that they are misled by wicked men with their own personal agendas who cobble together lies and misrepresentations.

One difficulty is that we fail to distinguish church teaching from the behaviour of individuals. Quite frankly our church officials have behaved appallingly, permissively and disobediently and so have large sections even majorities of our laity. But this is in fact common to the history of the church. Not with respect to the blessed sacrament perhaps as we shamefully see today but certainly shameful behaviour of church members is not unheard of in the annals of church history. We know that the devil sows his tares in the field of the good Lord. Therefore it should be no suprise to find that wickedness exists in the field of the good church. It may be that bishops, cardinals and maybe even a Pope might be a tare in the field but we have the promise that the church will not fail.
I wonder how many of us have paused to wonder whether perhaps Christ is dealing with this post modern world in a different way than he dealt with the mediaeval world. Hence the change in style and language of the council. I have on a number of occasions pointed out that a father sometimes takes different approach with his son. At one time being harsh and disciplined and at other times merciful and forbearing. Does this mean the father has changed. No of course not. He is using different techniques to produce a right effect from his son. Sometimes the son is willfully rebellious and needs harsh correction. Sometimes the son is maturing and needs to make some mistakes on his own.
So perhaps the church of yesterday was a naughty boy who needed close supervision and strict discipline. And maybe the church today is a youth striking out into maturity who needs some freedom to learn the hard lessons of life. Has the father erred because the son did not come home at the prescribed time or drank too much booze or got into a fight in the streets? Of course the father did not. And maybe the son when shown his behaviour will show great consternation and shame at his behaviour and will learn a valuable lesson which will move him into a fullness of maturity.
My point is that we must accept that Christ is the head of the church. If he allows ills in the church then he does so for his larger and greater purpose. The Pope and his bishops are merely the ministers of our Lord. He gives them free will certainly but not to the extent that his own will is thwarted. Let us place our confidence in the Lord who has all-power and who could correct every fault in the church in an instant if he so desired. Let's not try to do his job for him and in so doing only succeed in striking our hand against his own chosen minister. Let us pray for the Pope and his bishops and learn the catechism and pray with quietness of spirit like lambs to the slaughter until our Lord come
Reply
#58
Petrelton,
There's something about you that I like.
Perhaps you're a good honest NO priest that doesn't know what he's up against.
The Church cannot be a "naughty boy".
The Church can only be the "Mystical Body".
Reply
#59
(11-01-2009, 06:58 AM)nsper7 Wrote: 6) "Independent" Traditionalists (who knows what they believe, but they certainly reject anything but themselves)

there are too many of those  IMO.
Reply
#60
(11-03-2009, 01:45 AM)nsper7 Wrote:
(11-02-2009, 11:34 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: lets try this with a hypothetical.
Pope Benedict has a personal vision that so disturbs him that he goes to the world and the Worlds Bishops and proclaims authoritatively that Vat2 needs to be suppressed as does the NO, he proclaims Quo Primum to be his reset for the Church, banns all false ecumenical efforts, condemns Heresy, etc etc...in other words a full restoration of the Church's modality pre Vat2
Which groups would scatter into hundreds of schisms and apostasy? Traditionalists or Modernists? And which would coalesce into unity behind the Holy Father? That is where the True Church is.....

If such a thing happened, I would trust the Pope and have the faith in the Holy Spirit's guidance of the Church and I guess I would be attending a TLM from then on, eh? It is within the Pope's authority to suppress the use of a Form/Rite (after all, that is what St. Pius V's Quo Primum did) and, since the declarations of the Second Vatican Council are pastoral (no infallible declarations), they can be altered by the Pope, another Ecumenical Council or the actions of the universal and ordinary Magesterium.
yes but what would the modernists bishops and religious do?
what would the lsbo nun and the father gladhand and the left leaning whack german bishops etc....they would shriek and howel and LEAVE the pope.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)