Universae Ecclesiae released - full English text
#71
(05-13-2011, 04:44 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: There are Trads who refuse to participate in FE because these sort of close-minded comments are given free reign. I defer to Quis in terms of running the site the way he sees fit, but if you think I’m gonna say nothing when Vetus spouts his ridiculousness, you’re fooling yourself.

When we allow nonsense like this, just bitter spite against the Holy Father, to crop up unchallenged on FE, then we’re just giving more reasons to otherwise well-meaning Catholics to write off Traditionalists (and, thus, Tradition) as un-Catholic gibberish. I think it needs to stop. Trads need to grow up and forget this black-and-white cold-hearted thinking we can be so prone to.

I saw some comments the other day (not from Vetus) that I considered "Jewish race-baiting" and I said nothing.  I was wondering afterwards, if I did the right thing, precisely for the reason you give.  Leaving it unchallenged makes it look like a trad position. But I was really at a loss for what to say.  It was just so unreasonable that I did not know where to begin.  I suppose I could have made a simple statement of " I disagree with this".  But if I went through FE posting every time I disagreed with something, I would not be able to do anything else.

FE is what it is.  There is freedom for a wide range of views to be expressed here.  That has advantages and disadvantages. Right now, I am hyper-aware of the impression that we make on non-trads because recently my husband has started reading FE.  Few things would make me happier than for him to develop an appreciation for Catholic tradition.  It is gut-wrenching to see him turned off by comments here from trads.  Nevertheless I stand behind the moderation policy set in place by Vox and Quis that allows such things.
Reply
#72
(05-13-2011, 04:49 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(05-13-2011, 02:23 PM)st.dominic_savio Wrote:
(05-13-2011, 01:37 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: What else could you expect of a man who doesn't even believe that the Jews need to be converted?

I would like to challenge you to point out where Vetus said anything that was not true.

If Pope Benedict "doesn't even believe that the Jews need to be converted" then he's a heretic. Do you think the Holy Father is a heretic? Where has the Pope ever contradicted this essential Biblical and Catholic teaching, that all must convert to be saved? In his recent book, he merely discussed that the hardness of the hearts of the Jews will make it such that, on the whole, the church's efforts of evangelize them will prove largely unfruitful.

But to state that “the head of the Church of Christ on earth believes that the Jews don’t need to convert” is a blatant attempt to drag his name thru the mud, and is completely inappropriate on a Catholic discussion board.

Bak, I don't want to make things worse.  I really like you as a poster so I'm just trying to understand the situation.  I disagree but understand what you're saying about Vetus' comments about Pope Benedict, however, I've never seen Vetus call the Holy Father an outright heretic and, as far as I know, he's not a sede nor is he espousing that view here.  Secondly, it's obvious that you find Vetus' comments on Jews and Judaism offensive, however, I don't think it's fair to or charitable to publicly state that he is a racist or bigot.  This particular comment really had little to do with the Jews and was mostly about Pope Benedict.  The only implication was that they need Christ for their salvation, just as we all do.

Again, not trying to fan flames or anything, man.  Hopefully it doesn't come across that way.
Reply
#73
I think this thread needs less discussion of Hebrew and more discussion of Latin!
Reply
#74
(05-13-2011, 04:49 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(05-13-2011, 02:23 PM)st.dominic_savio Wrote:
(05-13-2011, 01:37 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: What else could you expect of a man who doesn't even believe that the Jews need to be converted?

I would like to challenge you to point out where Vetus said anything that was not true.

If Pope Benedict "doesn't even believe that the Jews need to be converted" then he's a heretic. Do you think the Holy Father is a heretic? Where has the Pope ever contradicted this essential Biblical and Catholic teaching, that all must convert to be saved? In his recent book, he merely discussed that the hardness of the hearts of the Jews will make it such that, on the whole, the church's efforts of evangelize them will prove largely unfruitful.

But to state that “the head of the Church of Christ on earth believes that the Jews don’t need to convert” is a blatant attempt to drag his name thru the mud, and is completely inappropriate on a Catholic discussion board.

Dude no offense but where have you been the last two months? Pope Benedict XVI, and yes I do acknowledge him as the true Pope, said in his book we do not need to "pray for the conversion of jews in a missionary sense." That is ridiculous and I am so tired of post-Vatican II popes pandering to talmudic judaism it makes me want to throw up. This includes John Paul II at the wailing wall. If you want to read how I really feel read this commentary by Marian T. Horvat. PLEASE

http://www.traditioninaction.org/religio...edict.html
Reply
#75
(05-13-2011, 06:16 PM)st.dominic_savio Wrote:
(05-13-2011, 04:49 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(05-13-2011, 02:23 PM)st.dominic_savio Wrote:
(05-13-2011, 01:37 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: What else could you expect of a man who doesn't even believe that the Jews need to be converted?

I would like to challenge you to point out where Vetus said anything that was not true.

If Pope Benedict "doesn't even believe that the Jews need to be converted" then he's a heretic. Do you think the Holy Father is a heretic? Where has the Pope ever contradicted this essential Biblical and Catholic teaching, that all must convert to be saved? In his recent book, he merely discussed that the hardness of the hearts of the Jews will make it such that, on the whole, the church's efforts of evangelize them will prove largely unfruitful.

But to state that “the head of the Church of Christ on earth believes that the Jews don’t need to convert” is a blatant attempt to drag his name thru the mud, and is completely inappropriate on a Catholic discussion board.

Dude no offense but where have you been the last two months? Pope Benedict XVI, and yes I do acknowledge him as the true Pope, said in his book we do not need to "pray for the conversion of jews in a missionary sense." That is ridiculous and I am so tired of post-Vatican II popes pandering to talmudic judaism it makes me want to throw up. This includes John Paul II at the wailing wall. If you want to read how I really feel read this commentary by Marian T. Horvat. PLEASE

http://www.traditioninaction.org/religio...edict.html

Um...is this the same Marian Horvat that said it was common practice for the Jews to crucify Christian babies during the middle ages?
Reply
#76
Ok, so several thoughts here.

One......jeez, people, take what you can get, will ya?  How quickly do you think he can go?  Permission to do the Triduum according to the old rite.....not enough for you?  Hell, it was only with SP that the Church told us we weren't all heretics for liking the TLM.

Second, do you really think the average Catholic is ever going to even hear about this, much less be affected by it?  On FE, we live for this stuff........but the guy in the pew is not checking the Vatican website for fresh encyclicals.  This is a 2 sentence item on CNN, and then back to the real news.

Third, the bishops won't violate it.  They'll just ignore it.  Like it never happened.  And there are none to say them nay.

Fourth, same for priests who came of age in the 70s and 80s.  Experience tells me they ain't changin'.

Fifth, couldn't agree more about the failure of catechesis and the utter repression of anything TLM related.  I've said it before on this forum, but......I was raised Catholic, got all my sacraments, went to CCD, went to an expensive private Catholic high school and an expensive private Catholic college, and I was 39 years old before I knew the Mass was ever in Latin!!!!

I say give the Pope the benefit of the doubt here.  He's doing what he can, and it's way more than has been done by anyone else since the reforms.

From my phone.....forgive any typos.
Reply
#77
Ya I apologize for my earlier tone. Although I think its perfectly reasonable to expect a pope to not engage with rabbis or imams inside of mosques and synagogues. Hypothetically lets say the Pope abolished the NO tomorrow and returned to the TLM.  Would there still be a need for the SSPX? Yes there would, because the SSPX/conciliar divide is not about liturgy, it is about doctrine in Vatican II itself regarding religous liberty and ecumenism.
Reply
#78
This document is what all the hype was about?  How boring.  :sleep: :sleep: :sleep:
Reply
#79
(05-13-2011, 11:28 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: The Holy Fathers have been obsessed with the 1962 missal and the proto-Novus Ordo Holy Week which it contains. This is partially the faults of the SSPX which accepted this Missal alone without any provision for the traditional Holy Week. I think it’s high time for traditionalists to assert that they have a right to pray the traditional Holy Week and not the committee created one.
While we didn’t lose ground with this document, I don’t know quite how much we really gained.  

I see this more as a hold; a no-hitter in the sense that each team failed to rack up any runs before the game was called due to darkness.

Also, I completely agree that the issue of the untouched, pre-Bugnini liturgy sadly went unaddressed, but ought to have been.  I understand the strategy that SSPX employed in mandating the 1962 books.  But given the fact that ICKSP has permission to use the pre-1955 rite, and they are in perfect ‘full canonical union’ with the Holy See, the situation seems paradoxical: The stalwarts and proven heroes of defending Tradition have become boxed in to defending a Bugnini creation.

Regarding the section on adding post-1962 Saints…  This is a big, dirty, and scary can of worms.

I wish the Vatican left this one alone (and instead addressed a more approachable matter I mentioned in the above paragraph.)  The fact is that in the Vatican II era and ever since, there has been a very detectable rupture.  The process for determining Blesseds and Saints has been modified in core ways.

While I personally accept that those declared Saints in the post conciliar era (NB I do not accept all of the permitted Blessed cults however), the fact remains that the bar was substantially lowered.  So while I don’t doubt those declared Saints are Saints, I have serious issue with including them along side past ones.

This is sort of like how I would reject letting all graduates of some tough language program receive the same exact accolades even though some truly went far above and beyond while others were ‘sufficient.’  In an optimal setting, once the Church is pruned and Traditionalists account for the vast majority of the Church, a future Pope grounded in the historic Faith could re-examine the Saint process under JP II and fix some obvious problems (St. Maximilian Kolbe is a Saint, but he is not a martyr; trying to add this cherry on top was offensive to the great and heroic manner this Saint lived, and ended, his life.)  Personally I doubt we will have that chance.

The point is that I have serious objections to including new Saints in the old calendar, not because I doubt their Sainthood, but rather for concerns of proportionality.
Reply
#80
That was it? Considering all the hype I was expecting more, though I knew I shouldn't have got my hopes up.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)