The moment of the Beatification of Bl. John Paul II
#91
(05-01-2011, 11:53 AM)acatholiclife Wrote: A Statement of Reservations Concerning the Impending Beatification of Pope John Paul II

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/2011-033...cation.htm

To my amazement, CBC News actually had Michael Matt on (via Skype) discussing his reservations on Sunday night!
Reply
#92
(05-01-2011, 01:55 PM)crusaderfortruth3372 Wrote:
(05-01-2011, 01:46 PM)Pilgrim_here Wrote:
(05-01-2011, 01:44 PM)richness of tradition Wrote: I am wondering why some very negative remarks are allowed in this topic about a Pope but the topic about the immorality of the new royal couple has been locked?

I don't think any of us wish to impugn his personal holiness - that is between him and the Lord.  However, we are questioning whether it was prudent of the Church to beatify him so soon - when many people still recall things like Assisi, the child abuse scandal and Koran kissing to name a few things.


Exactly, good point!
And love the article written by Dr. Sungenis, thanks!

Sungenis is a layperson, just like the rest of us...who cares what he thinks!!!
Reply
#93
(05-01-2011, 12:11 PM)vakarian Wrote:
(05-01-2011, 11:55 AM)Semper Idem Wrote:
(05-01-2011, 10:58 AM)username123 Wrote:
(05-01-2011, 10:00 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(05-01-2011, 09:55 AM)NorthernTrad Wrote: Now the New Religion has it's own crown gem in an attempt to beatify the destruction and heresy of Vatican Council II.  The man who destroyed the Catholic Faith in millions of souls and is directly responsible for the destruction of faith around the world is hailed as a saint.  "Santo Subito".  This should be a day of weeping for true Catholics who understand the message this sends to the world about the Church of Jesus Christ.  It tells the world that we hail those who make a whore of the Bride of Christ - His Immaculate Spouse and His Mystical Body.   Yes, this should be a day of weeping indeed.  Our only source of consolation are the sweet words of Our Lord when He said "Behold I am with you all days, even to the consumation of the world," and His Loving Mother "In the end my immaculate heart will triumph." 

Today the world goes deeper into fold of Satan as the ignorant are led astray and the wolves at the Vatican salivate over their growing kingdom.

Let today be a day of prayer and contemplation in a spirit of strength and renewed vigor in the battle for our holy faith.  Viva Cristo Rey!

This.

+2

This, +3, ditto...

This, indeed.

+7 (or whichever number we're up to now).  ;)
Reply
#94
(05-02-2011, 05:38 PM)lumine Wrote:
(05-01-2011, 01:55 PM)crusaderfortruth3372 Wrote:
(05-01-2011, 01:46 PM)Pilgrim_here Wrote:
(05-01-2011, 01:44 PM)richness of tradition Wrote: I am wondering why some very negative remarks are allowed in this topic about a Pope but the topic about the immorality of the new royal couple has been locked?

I don't think any of us wish to impugn his personal holiness - that is between him and the Lord.  However, we are questioning whether it was prudent of the Church to beatify him so soon - when many people still recall things like Assisi, the child abuse scandal and Koran kissing to name a few things.

So laypeople can't be holy?
Exactly, good point!
And love the article written by Dr. Sungenis, thanks!

Sungenis is a layperson, just like the rest of us...who cares what he thinks!!!

Are you saying that laypeople can't be holy?
Reply
#95
(05-02-2011, 05:37 AM)crusaderfortruth3372 Wrote:
(05-01-2011, 10:46 PM)NorthernTrad Wrote:
(05-01-2011, 02:57 PM)Petertherock Wrote: To make matters worse our Latin Mass Priest had us all pray that another miracle happens soon so we can have a new Saint. The priest can pray for whatever he wants...but I am not praying that he becomes a Saint.

Funny, my priest (CMRI) didn't mention it.   Time to switch masses Peter.

And my FSSP didn't either, so what's your point?!?! Nevermind, I know your point!

And Any reason why you want him to  attend an openly Sedev. mass??  I'd rather seem him go to a SSPX or SSPV before he ever attends one of yours! I know lots of CMRI  laymen who openly mock Pope Benedict out out of spite, no offense to you!!

For one reason, I am a sedevacantist.  Secondly, here in Maine there just aren't that many options and the CMRI priests do not push sedevacantism as an issue.  In fact, there are many who I attend Mass with that are not sedevacantists.

I'm not sure what your point was about CMRI laymen (assuming you mean laymen that attend the Masses of CMRI priests).


Reply
#96
Quote:No way...one of JPII's strongest statements ever was the fact that the whole women's ordination thing is a closed case..no further discussion.
And today Fr. Z posted a National Catholic Reporter article quoting Hans Kung saying that JP II wasn't very caring to women and liberal theologians, including those guys down in South America.

JPII did not issue strong statements putting down the heretics.  This is part of the fable.  His own views on liberation theology can be seen by reading is address to the Puebla conference.  It was unintelligible.  Certainly not a "strong" statement.  In 1984, it was Ratzinger who issued the stronger condemnation against liberation theology.  It came from the CDF.  I give JPII credit for allowing it though.

On women's ordination, his statement was weak.  Call it adequate.  None of the heretics were excommunicated.  That didn't happen until after Ratzinger became Pope Benedict.
Quote:  I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.
This is true, but it would be better to say "It is impossible for women to be ordained.  Any attempted ordination is invalid."

Pope Benedict is a big improvement over JPII, and I wouldn't want Benedict beatified either.

So yeah, throw him a bone on liberation theology and women's ordinations.  His biggest accomplishment was in facing down the soviet union and backing Lech Walesa.  Now compare that to the horrors of his pontificate.
Reply
#97
Quote:  Sungenis is a layperson, just like the rest of us...who cares what he thinks!!!

True.  What he thinks holds no authoritative weight.  It is the detailed analysis and FACTS that he presents that we should care about.  Like when he actually sites what JPII reallly wrote in his millions of pages of encyclicals.  And when he sites canon laws and past encyclicals.  Now these things a catholic should most certainly care about.

Also, when he single handedly took on the USCCB and got the Vatican to force them to remove the heresy from their adult catechism.  So yeah, what he DOES is impressive also.
Reply
#98
(05-02-2011, 10:23 PM)NorthernTrad Wrote: For one reason, I am a sedevacantist.  Secondly, here in Maine there just aren't that many options and the CMRI priests do not push sedevacantism as an issue.  In fact, there are many who I attend Mass with that are not sedevacantists.

I'm not sure what your point was about CMRI laymen (assuming you mean laymen that attend the Masses of CMRI priests).

Hmm, really? You had me fooled! From what I read, most CMRI priests do push the issue and preach it from the pulpit.... Okay, maybe I'm wrong then!
Reply
#99
(05-02-2011, 12:30 PM)Nic Wrote:
(05-02-2011, 11:14 AM)kingtheoden Wrote: I am sympathetic to those with a hardline approach, but I agree with JayneK.  The fact remains that we do have a hierarchy and a validly elected and con-validated Pope. 

A father who is absent and given to selfish pursuits still remains a father. 

Could we see a situation in which succession is unclear to most and in the midst of that chaos liberals and modernists do chop themselves off from the vine?  Sure, this could happen in a manner similar to the final break with the Church when Cranmer revised the rites (and he lacked any authority to do so and clearly sought to do contrary of that of the Church.  The Pope promulgated the Novus Ordo rite so it's vaild.  Displeasing, anguishing to the Lord and should be surpressed, but it is valid.) 

Conciliar Church is a term, when used with care, I don't have a problem with (if for no other reason that progressives and NeoCatholics often bandy about this description.)  When we speak of a 'new religion' etc., that is where I draw the line.  The Donatist situation settled this and, all things equal, valid orders and ministering of sacraments can pass down through heretical sects.

With that said, I personally don't like having anything to do with Novus Ordo rites because the entire package is rife with lack of clarity and thus the seeds of doubt.  For example, I'm in the grating process of investigating my Protestant baptism in an effort to prove it was valid.  This entire episode could have been avoided if my former Novus Ordo 'conservative' parish simply did what the Church always has done by conditionally baptising me.  But nay, we can't do that because in this time of rapprochement and aggiornamento, that might hurt the feelings of the nearby heretical communities.

For me, that is the legacy of this blessed.  Warm, mushy feelings dropped all over the carpet that ultimately need to be cleaned up by everyone else.

We will always have a hierarchy and a pope, but that doesn't mean for a second that the hierarchy and the pope will always be Catholic in the true sense of the term.  When I say "new religion" or "conciliar church" I mean a new religion or church in terms of what is being preached and effectively taught by our ecclesiastical superiors, NOT a parallel hierarchy.  The hierarchy is and will always be intact, but they can choose to preach whatever religion they so please from their positions of authority.  In times of orthodoxy, such action would be met with swift discipline.  In times such as these, such actions are promoted.

The new religion is an intangible element that is very much alive within the official confines of the Church.  It is like a cancer that has been spreading since the close of Vatican II, which was the advent of this spiritual pathogen.  The Church was virtually taken over by a "coup d'etat."  Pardon me a small allegory:  A plane becomes hijacked and is flown in whatever course the hijackers so desire.  The Church is the plane and the hijackers are the infiltrators who established the new religion.  They fabricated a non-Catholic Mass based almost totally on the ideals of Protestantism to steer us all off the course of true Catholicism. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.  They teach almost exclusively from a non-infallible pastoral council packed full of ambiguity and outright error to divert us from the true course.  Their weapons are a council that largely contradicts the true religion - and a Mass that "does not teach the faith as presented by the Council of Trent." a dogmatic council that the Catholic mind is forever bound.  Their weapons have been used to a horrible effect.

I agree that we are on the trajectory that naturally will lead to a formal defection from the Faith and a creation of a congregation that is not just schismatic, but also heretical that lacks apostolic succession.

In that respect, I agree that we are seeing a new religion coalesce and take shape.  While doing so, it remains coextensive with the Catholic Church; the future new relgion today is a bloc of heretics ever-more straining the fibers tying them to the vine.

My understanding of the Arian Crisis is that during the height of this period, most bishops openly taught that Christ was not divine.  Indeed, they persecuted those who held to the truth He was truly God.

After this was resolved and the dogma completely defined, the clerics who had held heretical views but recanted their error were fully restored.  So the Arians didn't creat a new religion, at least not for a while, albeit they were staunch heretics within the confines of the Church.

The best comparison I can find in history is Cranmer's ultimate break with the Church.  Once he instituted a rite with the intention of doing something distinctly apart from the universal Church, all successive Anglican orders were null and void.  I do not see us at that point yet.

Again, with that said, I don't buy the refrain 'it's okay if its valid matter and form.'  That sounds legalistic and mechanical and not something becoming of someone attempting to worship God.  

Also, I appreciate the quote from Hillaire Belloc that somemone posted in another thread.  I don't need to inspect every leaf of a tree in order to know it is an oak.  In like manner, one cannot seriously place on a level plane the Mass and practical theology of an ICKSP oratory, e.g., and a Novus Ordo versus populum ceremony that is an almost perfect copy of an ELCA service.

All this equal, I don't see the latter as 'outside the Church' in a formal sense.  However, eventually there will be a formal break because there is no way to reconcile this divide.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)