Fr Corapi gets it
#11
(10-01-2010, 11:40 PM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote:
(10-01-2010, 11:29 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-01-2010, 11:22 PM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote: If much of Windswept House is to be believed then the pontiff simply does not control large areas of the Vatican, and the Church.  'They' would do something outrageous or terrible if he were to go so far as excommunicate the heretics - a lot of them anyway.

Imagine this.  If Windswept House is true and John Paul II was seen as an arch-enemy of the modernists and secularists trying to reform and transform the Church to serve the City of Man, how much more would Benedict be seen as an enemy?  If they hated JPII can you imagine the hatred they have and the plans they make to neutralize Benedict?

I also think that part of the reasons the excommunications don't come is because the Holy Father is making quiet and subtle moves to combat the infiltration, to reverse it with a slow and deliberate process, not unlike the way that it came about.  Imagine the upheaval, confusion, and distress that would be caused by purging out all modernism from the Church in one large movement.  Perhaps the Holy Father believes that if he puts the correct pieces into place that the current modernists will soon die off and be replaced with cardinals, bishops, vicars, theologians, priests etc. that are friendly to tradition and will right the Church swiftly once the opposition has been weeded out by death and the promotion of good prelates worldwide.

Very possible.

He would almost have to have direct knowledge of his successor(s) for that to play-out as planned.

But he would, of course, just do what he can and give the rest to the Holy Ghost.

Right, but look at how planned out the events of Windswept House were.  They groomed guys and then put them in place to succeed them years down with a specific agenda for them to carry out.
Reply
#12
(09-30-2010, 03:35 AM)glgas Wrote: The Center of the Catholic religion (and for any religion) is God. Catholics are Catholics because they believe that Jesus Christ, the second divine Person  is present in the world through His Mystical Body, the Church. The belief in the Sacraments, and among them the Eucharist is shared with the Easter Orthodox people.

Otherwise to put the tabernacle to anywhere than the front of the people is great irreverence toward our Lord. I always wondered how some people who claim loudly that the times when the priest celebrated the muss turning his back toward them were wrong, accept w/o any problem that they turn their back toward our God in the Eucharist.


During the English reformation ,  the tabernacle  was place  in secretive locations to escape pursuivants.   The priest of course life was in danger  and was often secreted into a priest hole, which was a  hidden  room specially built .  So the tabernacle could have been kept  in a closet or  kept locked in some secret compartment of a writing bureau.   

Reply
#13
(10-02-2010, 03:49 AM)Hemidemisemiquaver Wrote:
(09-30-2010, 03:35 AM)glgas Wrote: The Center of the Catholic religion (and for any religion) is God. Catholics are Catholics because they believe that Jesus Christ, the second divine Person  is present in the world through His Mystical Body, the Church. The belief in the Sacraments, and among them the Eucharist is shared with the Easter Orthodox people.

Otherwise to put the tabernacle to anywhere than the front of the people is great irreverence toward our Lord. I always wondered how some people who claim loudly that the times when the priest celebrated the muss turning his back toward them were wrong, accept w/o any problem that they turn their back toward our God in the Eucharist.


During the English reformation ,  the tabernacle  was place  in secretive locations to escape pursuivants.   The priest of course life was in danger  and was often secreted into a priest hole, which was a  hidden  room specially built .  So the tabernacle could have been kept  in a closet or  kept locked in some secret compartment of a writing bureau.   

It is very silly to compare the two situations.  A tabernacle hidden out of *need* vs. something done out of *want*??
Reply
#14
(10-02-2010, 10:12 AM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote:
(10-02-2010, 03:49 AM)Hemidemisemiquaver Wrote:
(09-30-2010, 03:35 AM)glgas Wrote: The Center of the Catholic religion (and for any religion) is God. Catholics are Catholics because they believe that Jesus Christ, the second divine Person  is present in the world through His Mystical Body, the Church. The belief in the Sacraments, and among them the Eucharist is shared with the Easter Orthodox people.

Otherwise to put the tabernacle to anywhere than the front of the people is great irreverence toward our Lord. I always wondered how some people who claim loudly that the times when the priest celebrated the muss turning his back toward them were wrong, accept w/o any problem that they turn their back toward our God in the Eucharist.


Hey Thinker,  keep your head on!  I wasn't really comparing the two, i just stated what used to happen  during the reformation.......







During the English reformation ,  the tabernacle  was place  in secretive locations to escape pursuivants.   The priest of course life was in danger  and was often secreted into a priest hole, which was a  hidden  room specially built .  So the tabernacle could have been kept  in a closet or  kept locked in some secret compartment of a writing bureau.   

It is very silly to compare the two situations.  A tabernacle hidden out of *need* vs. something done out of *want*??
Reply
#15
I kind of thought you were implying that it's fine to move the tabernacle from a center position because it's been done in the past.  I've seen that type of argument advanced to defend that practice, altar-smashing, and every other modern appeal to antiquarianism.  I'm sorry if I misconstrued.
Reply
#16
(10-02-2010, 01:27 PM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote: I kind of thought you were implying that it's fine to move the tabernacle from a center position because it's been done in the past.  I've seen that type of argument advanced to defend that practice, altar-smashing, and every other modern appeal to antiquarianism.  I'm sorry if I misconstrued.

Wait, what? When was altar-smashing done in the past*, and under what circumstances? I've never heard of that before (I have much to learn when it comes to the areas of Church history that don't involve councils, :P ).

* Besides the period after Vatican II, of course.
Reply
#17
(10-02-2010, 10:52 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(10-02-2010, 01:27 PM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote: I kind of thought you were implying that it's fine to move the tabernacle from a center position because it's been done in the past.  I've seen that type of argument advanced to defend that practice, altar-smashing, and every other modern appeal to antiquarianism.  I'm sorry if I misconstrued.

Wait, what? When was altar-smashing done in the past*, and under what circumstances? I've never heard of that before (I have much to learn when it comes to the areas of Church history that don't involve councils, :P ).

* Besides the period after Vatican II, of course.

It was done in England and all over Europe after the Reformation during Protestant takeovers.

And then it was done again all over the U.S., England, and Europe after the Protestant takeover of Catholicism after Vatican II.  (Tongue partially in cheek there.)

Michael Davies (a British author) has written brilliantly regarding the stunning parallels of these two periods.

(Another story I recall concerns a bishop in some U.S. diocese that had to get police protection around a church during the altar smashing to keep the angry parishioners away.)
Reply
#18
JP II didn't crack down because he was a liberal.  Just look at the name he chose, for goodness sakes.

For Pope Benedict, your theory is plausible.  In the USA, his recent moves in the bishop department have all been an improvement.  At the very beginning, it looks like he screwed up in DC and San Fagcisco.  But he has had a string of good appointments lately.

However, his theory is flawed.  Even if the Vatican was destroyed, and all of his Cardinals rebelled, he still has the authority of God to wield.  It is his alone.

Second, I think he is under some sort of blackmail, like the sodomite molestation scandal is 100 times worse than we can imagine.  Why else would he allow Pelosi to meet with him?  That was not needed to prevent the theoretical schism.  Someone made a phone call and pointed a few things out.  So he behaved himself in front of Hussein Obama and Pelosi.

And then there is Fatima.  What would make him lie like he did?  It must be pretty bad stuff they have.
Reply
#19
(10-03-2010, 01:26 AM)James02 Wrote: JP II didn't crack down because he was a liberal.  Just look at the name he chose, for goodness sakes.

For Pope Benedict, your theory is plausible.  In the USA, his recent moves in the bishop department have all been an improvement.  At the very beginning, it looks like he screwed up in DC and San Fagcisco.  But he has had a string of good appointments lately.

However, his theory is flawed.  Even if the Vatican was destroyed, and all of his Cardinals rebelled, he still has the authority of God to wield.  It is his alone.

Second, I think he is under some sort of blackmail, like the sodomite molestation scandal is 100 times worse than we can imagine.  Why else would he allow Pelosi to meet with him?  That was not needed to prevent the theoretical schism.  Someone made a phone call and pointed a few things out.  So he behaved himself in front of Hussein Obama and Pelosi.

And then there is Fatima.  What would make him lie like he did?  It must be pretty bad stuff they have.

I have to admit, the phrase that has been coming to me lately is "... or the holy father will have much to suffer".

On the other hand, popes have always met with heads of state.  Any common ground and any possibility of improvement is grounds to meet, for the good of the people.  Pelosi did not get her photo op and THAT was the appropriate slap in the face (rather than just refusing any meeting, which would be undiplomatic).
Reply
#20
(09-30-2010, 09:57 AM)winoblue1 Wrote: The problem isn't belief per se, but that the Church is not forcing what is called dispositional belief.
A dispositional belief is credited to someone if they act as if such and such were the case.
It is the Church's role to encourage through outward actions and discipline, dispositional belief.
From dispositional belief can come actual belief, but that is a gift of God.
So the Church through Her ritual, liturgy, discipline, laws etc, needs to compel dispositional belief in the Real Presence.
Communion in the hand, the new mass, moving the tabernacle have all resulted in the lack of dispositional belief among the faithful and therefore actual belief.
Once the Church gets Her house in order, people will begin to believe again, but if the Church acts like it doesn't believe, who will do so?
dispositional belife is why I am glad I am eastern rite. Im so glad you gave name to this concept for me i have been searching for years to try to explain to some why the iconostas, icons tetrapods, and the holy doors force reverence even upon the non beliver.
When the no churches became worship spaces the only one they came to reverence is themselves IMO
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)