Are things getting better or worse in the Church?
#41
(12-26-2009, 11:55 PM)DrBombay Wrote:
(12-26-2009, 11:44 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(12-26-2009, 11:35 PM)DrBombay Wrote: I'd like to know when in Church history all the priests have been saints who always said Mass reverently and never deviated from the rubrics, when all the bishops were completely docilely obedient to the Pope, when all the lay faithful knew their faith and always lived it perfectly in their daily lives?

The Church has been in crisis since Day 1.  To think otherwise is naivete....usually charming in a child, sometimes in a woman, never in a man. Some historical perspective would be refreshing.

Not every Pope in the history of the Church has described the Church as in the process of "auto-destruction" and lamented that the "smoke of Satan" had infiltrated the Church up to the highest levels of the heirarchy.   That was followed by the next pope declaring a state of "silent apostasy" and  that was followed by a third Pope that said just prior to his election that  the Church is "like a boat sinking" "full of filth" and "in liturgical ruins."  

No one is expecting perfection this side of Heaven.  But let's not try to pretend that this crisis is just another blip on the monitor.   The Arian crisis stands out, the Great Schism and the Reformation as well, and this one blows them out of the water because the hierarchy has barely done a thing over the last few decades to address it.  Paul VI and JPII acknowledged it (JPII grudgingly at the end) but they both did nothing of real papal substance to stop it or stem it.

There are times of comparative peace and times of war.  We are in a big, big war right now.    

The pope is not now, nor has he ever been, a monarch with absolute power who can impose his will by fiat.

I've asked this question before and have not yet received an answer.  What if the pope decided to remove the Cardinal Archbishop of Los Angeles and the Cardinal refused to vacate his see?  What would the pope do...send in the Swiss Guard to forcibly remove him?  Ha. 

Sadly, the pope operates in the real world, not traddy fantasy land.  Since he has almost no temporal power at this moment in history, all he can do is beg, plead and cajole.  He has to pick his fights. Don't confuse the battle with the war.  We've been at war since Day 1...and we win, remember?

So you admit things are worse if the Pope would have removed the Cardinal of Los Angeles in 1890 he would have left back then they had respect for the Pope and listened to him. Do you think a Chief Child molester enabler like Mahomo would be Cardinal of Los Angeles then anyway? Would he write a letter decrying the visitation of the corrupt Nuns(was that even needed back then) would he tell mexicans to break our laws and come over our border illegaly. Would he invite dissenting Bishops who support womens ordination to his diocese would he have a Eucharistic congress ripe with paganism. I think you should have chose someone else for an example than the archhomo Mahony.
Reply
#42
(12-26-2009, 11:35 PM)DrBombay Wrote: I'd like to know when in Church history all the priests have been saints who always said Mass reverently and never deviated from the rubrics, when all the bishops were completely docilely obedient to the Pope, when all the lay faithful knew their faith and always lived it perfectly in their daily lives?

The Church has been in crisis since Day 1.  To think otherwise is naivete....usually charming in a child, sometimes in a woman, never in a man. Some historical perspective would be refreshing.

I'd like to know where you get your rose colored glasses I am in dire need of some. Also it would be nice if you just answered my question no one debates that there have always been problems but never as bad as this if you want to play the cutie pie ass you can do it on a less serious thread.
Reply
#43
(12-27-2009, 12:05 AM)Baskerville Wrote:
(12-26-2009, 11:48 PM)DrBombay Wrote:
(12-26-2009, 11:42 PM)Baskerville Wrote:
(12-26-2009, 11:35 PM)DrBombay Wrote: I'd like to know when in Church history all the priests have been saints who always said Mass reverently and never deviated from the rubrics, when all the bishops were completely docilely obedient to the Pope, when all the lay faithful knew their faith and always lived it perfectly in their daily lives?

The Church has been in crisis since Day 1.  To think otherwise is naivete....usually charming in a child, sometimes in a woman, never in a man. Some historical perspective would be refreshing.

So you think that there is no more of a crisis in the Church now then in 1959 :pazzo:

Please don't feed me that idealized version of 1950s Catholicism.  That's a load of crap.  All the bishops and priests that caused such havoc in the Church in the 60s and 70s grew up attending the traditional Mass and were trained in "traditional" seminaries, many of which would put even the SSPX to shame since all the classes were taught in Latin.  Don't confuse external observance with strong faith.  Sometimes the two are mutually exclusive.

I was just picking a date before the council how about this sometime in Dec 1911 will that be better. Do honestly thin things were as bad then. And you knew what I meant by saying 1959 dont be cute.

I am many things, sir, but cute is not one of them.  

I don't know.  My point is, there have always been problems in the Church.  As far as I know the pope hasn't denied any dogmas....so Rome still holds the Faith.  Just because he doesn't call himself "We," doesn't wear a beehive on his head and doesn't call protties heretics....well, so  what?  He's a squish on those things.  Big deal, doesn't mean he's a heretic.  

The pope doesn't have any temporal power anymore, except within the walls of Vatican City.  He can't excommunicate world leaders and expect it to have any affect whatsoever, except to make him a laughingstock and his power among the Church's bishops is limited since he can't really enforce any decrees; he has to rely on goodwill and simple obedience.  What part of this don't you understand?
Reply
#44
(12-27-2009, 12:11 AM)Baskerville Wrote:
(12-26-2009, 11:55 PM)DrBombay Wrote:
(12-26-2009, 11:44 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(12-26-2009, 11:35 PM)DrBombay Wrote: I'd like to know when in Church history all the priests have been saints who always said Mass reverently and never deviated from the rubrics, when all the bishops were completely docilely obedient to the Pope, when all the lay faithful knew their faith and always lived it perfectly in their daily lives?

The Church has been in crisis since Day 1.  To think otherwise is naivete....usually charming in a child, sometimes in a woman, never in a man. Some historical perspective would be refreshing.

Not every Pope in the history of the Church has described the Church as in the process of "auto-destruction" and lamented that the "smoke of Satan" had infiltrated the Church up to the highest levels of the heirarchy.   That was followed by the next pope declaring a state of "silent apostasy" and  that was followed by a third Pope that said just prior to his election that  the Church is "like a boat sinking" "full of filth" and "in liturgical ruins."  

No one is expecting perfection this side of Heaven.  But let's not try to pretend that this crisis is just another blip on the monitor.   The Arian crisis stands out, the Great Schism and the Reformation as well, and this one blows them out of the water because the hierarchy has barely done a thing over the last few decades to address it.  Paul VI and JPII acknowledged it (JPII grudgingly at the end) but they both did nothing of real papal substance to stop it or stem it.

There are times of comparative peace and times of war.  We are in a big, big war right now.    

The pope is not now, nor has he ever been, a monarch with absolute power who can impose his will by fiat.

I've asked this question before and have not yet received an answer.  What if the pope decided to remove the Cardinal Archbishop of Los Angeles and the Cardinal refused to vacate his see?  What would the pope do...send in the Swiss Guard to forcibly remove him?  Ha. 

Sadly, the pope operates in the real world, not traddy fantasy land.  Since he has almost no temporal power at this moment in history, all he can do is beg, plead and cajole.  He has to pick his fights. Don't confuse the battle with the war.  We've been at war since Day 1...and we win, remember?

So you admit things are worse if the Pope would have removed the Cardinal of Los Angeles in 1890 he would have left back then they had respect for the Pope and listened to him. Do you think a Chief Child molester enabler like Mahomo would be Cardinal of Los Angeles then anyway? Would he write a letter decrying the visitation of the corrupt Nuns(was that even needed back then) would he tell mexicans to break our laws and come over our border illegaly. Would he invite dissenting Bishops who support womens ordination to his diocese would he have a Eucharistic congress ripe with paganism. I think you should have chose someone else for an example than the archhomo Mahony.

Are you implying that Cardinal Mahony is a homosexual?  If you are, I would like to see you provide proof. 
Reply
#45
(12-27-2009, 12:16 AM)Baskerville Wrote:
(12-26-2009, 11:35 PM)DrBombay Wrote: I'd like to know when in Church history all the priests have been saints who always said Mass reverently and never deviated from the rubrics, when all the bishops were completely docilely obedient to the Pope, when all the lay faithful knew their faith and always lived it perfectly in their daily lives?

The Church has been in crisis since Day 1.  To think otherwise is naivete....usually charming in a child, sometimes in a woman, never in a man. Some historical perspective would be refreshing.

I'd like to know where you get your rose colored glasses I am in dire need of some. Also it would be nice if you just answered my question no one debates that there have always been problems but never as bad as this if you want to play the cutie pie ass you can do it on a less serious thread.

As soon as you answer my question about how the pope is reasonably supposed to remove a recalcitrant bishop from his see.  Until you provide the answer to that, you can kiss my cutie pie ass.  :-*
Reply
#46
(12-26-2009, 11:55 PM)DrBombay Wrote: The pope is not now, nor has he ever been, a monarch with absolute power who can impose his will by fiat.

Quote: I've asked this question before and have not yet received an answer.  What if the pope decided to remove the Cardinal Archbishop of Los Angeles and the Cardinal refused to vacate his see?  What would the pope do...send in the Swiss Guard to forcibly remove him?  Ha. 

Actually the Swiss Guard would go though if he told them to.  He would obviously be replaced, he would be an apostate occupying stolen property and the lawsuits would begin.  Catholics would be forced to choose between him and the Pope.  Every bishop in the world would be applying pressure.  Every possible avenue of financial pressure would be exerted to put the Cardinal back in line.  Catholics would be pouring into Los Angeles to make the Cardinal's life miserable.  The Cardinal lives for his mission of destruction inside the Church.  He will fall on his sword rather than be excommunicated.  He can't do any real damage excommunicated. 

Quote: Sadly, the pope operates in the real world, not traddy fantasy land. 

Traddy fantasy land is alot more real than the "real world" that you describe. 

Quote: Since he has almost no temporal power at this moment in history, all he can do is beg, plead and cajole.  He has to pick his fights. Don't confuse the battle with the war.  We've been at war since Day 1...and we win, remember?

Yes.  That win will be both temporal and spiritual.  Despite what the "real world" has taught you, the Pope has all the power, we just need a saint in there to claim it and use it.  He has the keys and "all power on Heaven and in Earth" has been given to Christ. That includes political power.   And God in the blink of an eye can produce mass conversions among every enemy of the Church to confound "the real world."   We had a miracle worker of a Pope a century ago.  It's a small matter for God to put another one in office and it will happen in His good time. 

No amount of political power can instantly cure nuns with cancer.  Pope St. Pius X could do that.   You think a Pope is trapped by politics?  C'mon.   They are only trapped by their human weakness.





Reply
#47
(12-27-2009, 12:25 AM)DrBombay Wrote:
(12-27-2009, 12:16 AM)Baskerville Wrote:
(12-26-2009, 11:35 PM)DrBombay Wrote: I'd like to know when in Church history all the priests have been saints who always said Mass reverently and never deviated from the rubrics, when all the bishops were completely docilely obedient to the Pope, when all the lay faithful knew their faith and always lived it perfectly in their daily lives?

The Church has been in crisis since Day 1.  To think otherwise is naivete....usually charming in a child, sometimes in a woman, never in a man. Some historical perspective would be refreshing.

I'd like to know where you get your rose colored glasses I am in dire need of some. Also it would be nice if you just answered my question no one debates that there have always been problems but never as bad as this if you want to play the cutie pie ass you can do it on a less serious thread.

As soon as you answer my question about how the pope is reasonably supposed to remove a recalcitrant bishop from his see.  Until you provide the answer to that, you can kiss my cutie pie ass.   :-*

Okay I'll just have to pucker up :-*. Because your right there is no way he could remove one today.(except with pressure from other Catholics, Gerard is right on track) But back in the day (no not the 50's) he would have been able to. Thats what I am saying Conciliarism has gutted the Papacy. And I just want to know if things at the Parish level are getting more traditional back in the middle ages people didnt even know the name of their current Pope what I am concerned with is are things getting better today then they were back say 15 years ago. Sure we can rattle of stuff the Pope has done the MP and other things but are these actually having an effect?
Reply
#48
(12-27-2009, 12:52 AM)Gerard Wrote:
(12-26-2009, 11:55 PM)DrBombay Wrote: The pope is not now, nor has he ever been, a monarch with absolute power who can impose his will by fiat.

What about the Papal States? And the middle ages?
Reply
#49
DrBombay Wrote:Please don't feed me that idealized version of 1950s Catholicism.  That's a load of crap.  All the bishops and priests that caused such havoc in the Church in the 60s and 70s grew up attending the traditional Mass and were trained in "traditional" seminaries, many of which would put even the SSPX to shame since all the classes were taught in Latin.  Don't confuse external observance with strong faith.  Sometimes the two are mutually exclusive.
Weak faith and strong piety is better than no faith and brazen audacity. How about the faith and devotion of 1800's rather the 1950's? The world has always been evil and fallen, but it is worse still today. Evil in this world can wax and wean.
Reply
#50
DrBombay Wrote:The pope is not now, nor has he ever been, a monarch with absolute power who can impose his will by fiat.
[/quote]The Pope being a man obviously does not have absolute power by nature, but being the Vicar of Christ he could conjure 12 thousand legions of Angels. also the Office of the Vicar of Christ considered an absolute Monarchy by the Church herself. It is much more also though.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)