Benedict XVI, Modernism and the Resurrection
#21
Hey man, don't be bothered by the smoke man.  I, the nebulous Father Cekada will tell you that the BXVI is saying orthodox things but has hidden extra meanings.  I will show you these hidden meanings and how to identify them.  Actually, no I won't. Just trust me. They are there man. Its all doublespeak man. Give me your brain and let me think for you. Become like my pets Northerntrad, Old Man and Stubborn. Let me think for you like I think for them.  GIVE IN ... GIVE in ... Give in ... give in to Father Cekada.

Reply
#22
I will remind people that:

1) Fr. Cekada is a priest; the office itself is due some modicum of respect at all times.

2) While he engages in barbs and witticisms, he also makes valid theological arguments and attempts to back them up.  I don't agree with some of his positions and conclusions, both about sedevacantism and B16, but he puts his arguments out there and gives reasons for them.  They are worth serious counterarguments and counter-reasons.

So, if you have a counterargument, you are free to make it.  You are even free to use barbs and witticisms within reason.  But disrespectful nonsense against a priest on the forum like the above is a no-go for me.  I don't care if it were Fr. Hans Kung; if you are responding to a forum member that is a validly ordained priest by most sane people's reckonings, you need to respect the office.

I clearly allow a lot more slack against public statements of the clergy in the media, etc. because that is commentary and punditry.  It's different when it is personally directed.

The way we respect the clergy when we address them personally and directly goes to our respect for the Church and Christ.  So I expect forum members who are clergy to be addressed appropriately by those who know they are clergy.

My apologies, Father (kissing the hand).
Reply
#23
I respect the office of priesthood, but what I don't respect is this silliness of conitnually pulling snippets of BXVI out of context and using that to create paranoia about our Holy Father and the Catholic Church.  I also don't respect these fear tactics of telling everyone that anything coming from Rome, or someone in communion with Rome, is doublespeak.  I also find it amusing that we are told by Father Cekada that these "hidden meanings" are there, but he never points out exactly what those hidden meanings are and how to recognize them.

We are not allowed to discuss sedevacantism on this forum, but I find that these subtle attacks on the integrity of our Holy Father are more insidious than any open discussion of sedevacantism.

Anyways, In the future I will refrain from parodying anyone who identifies themselves as clergy.
Reply
#24
(04-22-2011, 04:00 PM)CredoUtIntelligam Wrote: 1) Bishop Sanborn's exegesis of Ratzinger's views in Jesus of Nazareth is incorrect, and Ratzinger does not contradict the traditional understanding of the resurrection of  the body; or

2) Bishop Sanborn's exegesis is correct, and Ratzinger does contradict the traditional dogma BUT Pope Benedict expresses the traditional dogma. 

From da :readrules: Wrote:When speaking about the current Holy Father or any previous Pope, he will be spoken of respectfully. He may be referred to using his proper titles, e.g., The Holy Father, or his Papal name, e.g., in the case of the current Pontiff, Benedict XVI or Benedict.

Reply
#25
(05-04-2011, 04:59 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(04-22-2011, 04:00 PM)CredoUtIntelligam Wrote: 1) Bishop Sanborn's exegesis of Ratzinger's views in Jesus of Nazareth is incorrect, and Ratzinger does not contradict the traditional understanding of the resurrection of  the body; or

2) Bishop Sanborn's exegesis is correct, and Ratzinger does contradict the traditional dogma BUT Pope Benedict expresses the traditional dogma. 

From da :readrules: Wrote:When speaking about the current Holy Father or any previous Pope, he will be spoken of respectfully. He may be referred to using his proper titles, e.g., The Holy Father, or his Papal name, e.g., in the case of the current Pontiff, Benedict XVI or Benedict.

Oh no!  The rules have been broken! Quickly, point it out to Quis before someone else does!  Seriously, these threads really do go down hill when people run out of arguments.
Reply
#26
(05-04-2011, 10:30 PM)NorthernTrad Wrote:
(05-04-2011, 04:59 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(04-22-2011, 04:00 PM)CredoUtIntelligam Wrote: 1) Bishop Sanborn's exegesis of Ratzinger's views in Jesus of Nazareth is incorrect, and Ratzinger does not contradict the traditional understanding of the resurrection of  the body; or

2) Bishop Sanborn's exegesis is correct, and Ratzinger does contradict the traditional dogma BUT Pope Benedict expresses the traditional dogma. 

From da :readrules: Wrote:When speaking about the current Holy Father or any previous Pope, he will be spoken of respectfully. He may be referred to using his proper titles, e.g., The Holy Father, or his Papal name, e.g., in the case of the current Pontiff, Benedict XVI or Benedict.

Oh no!  The rules have been broken! Quickly, point it out to Quis before someone else does!   Seriously, these threads really do go down hill when people run out of arguments.

Were the rules even broken?  It sounds like the poster was trying to distinguish between him as Cardinal Ratzinger and as Pope Benedict.  Things would get a little clumsy if we couldn't make that distinction (back before Pope Benedict was Pope Benedict...?).
Reply
#27
(05-04-2011, 10:30 PM)NorthernTrad Wrote:
(05-04-2011, 04:59 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(04-22-2011, 04:00 PM)CredoUtIntelligam Wrote: 1) Bishop Sanborn's exegesis of Ratzinger's views in Jesus of Nazareth is incorrect, and Ratzinger does not contradict the traditional understanding of the resurrection of  the body; or

2) Bishop Sanborn's exegesis is correct, and Ratzinger does contradict the traditional dogma BUT Pope Benedict expresses the traditional dogma. 

From da :readrules: Wrote:When speaking about the current Holy Father or any previous Pope, he will be spoken of respectfully. He may be referred to using his proper titles, e.g., The Holy Father, or his Papal name, e.g., in the case of the current Pontiff, Benedict XVI or Benedict.

Oh no!  The rules have been broken! Quickly, point it out to Quis before someone else does!   Seriously, these threads really do go down hill when people run out of arguments.

This.
Reply
#28
(05-04-2011, 04:35 PM)AxxeArp Wrote: I respect the office of priesthood, but what I don't respect is this silliness of conitnually pulling snippets of BXVI out of context and using that to create paranoia about our Holy Father and the Catholic Church.   I also don't respect these fear tactics of telling everyone that anything coming from Rome, or someone in communion with Rome, is doublespeak.  I also find it amusing that we are told by Father Cekada that these "hidden meanings" are there, but he never points out exactly what those hidden meanings are and how to recognize them.

We are not allowed to discuss sedevacantism on this forum, but I find that these subtle attacks on the integrity of our Holy Father are more insidious than any open discussion of sedevacantism.

Anyways, In the future I will refrain from parodying anyone who identifies themselves as clergy.

Oh it is so awful!  Why can't everyone just agree with you!  Oh the humanity of it all!  When will it end?!

But seriously, why don't you try joining the debate instead of continuing to create distractions with no substance.
Reply
#29
I'm still waiting for a proper argument from anyone who supports the OP's article, including Father Cekada. The points I made have not yet been responded to.
Reply
#30
(05-01-2011, 06:08 PM)OldMan Wrote:
(04-23-2011, 02:57 AM)Freudentaumel Wrote: The day that people will stop believing the sedevacantist cult-leaders and start reading the sources themselves will be the day they stop being sedevacantists.

How many times do they have to mistranslate the pope and quote him out of context before people stop buying into their lies?

No mistranslation. The quotes are from the English edition! Perhaps you don't speak English?
The mistranslation part did not refer to this article, it referred to past sedevacantist smears of the Holy Father, when they deliberately mistranslated him.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)