I owe some of you an apology..
#1
I read an article last night before I went to bed (which was responsible for me sleeping in I might add!).  It's from TIA (which I wouldn't normally go to for a source of education).  I'll quote the relevant part:

Quote:There is also a similarity between the sede-vacantist and what I'll call the Novus Ordo Conservative (NOC). They both make the same fundamental error. That being, that "a Pope can do no wrong." If it were true that a Pope can do no wrong it would mean a forfeiture of his free will. The sede-vacantist and the NOC both share this false premise - albeit they draw different conclusions. For example, the NOC is not bothered when a Pope kisses the Koran, or announces to the world that the UN is the last hope of mankind, or allows topless women on the altar as part of the liturgy, or is anointed by a pagan witch doctor, or leads Jews to believe they don't need to convert to be saved. The NOC will clap and applaud and shout yippee because he's the Pope and "a Pope can do no wrong.”

On the other hand, the sede-vacantist, also believing “a Pope can do no wrong,” is understandably shocked by all of the above (all actual papal incidents) and knowing that these things are clearly against the Faith, draws the conclusion that since "a Pope can do no wrong" and he is doing this bad stuff, ergo he cannot really be the Pope.

To most here I suppose I'm that "Novus Ordo Conservative" (I honestly dislike any labels like these, I'm Catholic, end of).  And due to this.. I have been viewing most of you as being on the other opposite end of the spectrum from my self.  Which is unfair and down to nothing but my own ignorance on how these matters are meant to be dealt with (Papal authority, what if Pope falls into heresy etc.).  Essentially, whilst I have criticised papal moves etc., I have been living under the view that "the Pope can do no wrong".  I'm not exactly jumping for joy screaming "yipee" about Assisi (for talking's sake) but I have viewed my position of the be all and end all and anyone not on my side is at the other extreme.  For this I apologise.

I will say however that I still do not support the SSPX in its current irregularised position, I still abhor and detest the all too common language directed at the Holy Father and Rome and I still have a great distaste in my mouth at the talk of the Pope being Pope of two religions.

But yea, sorry.
Reply
#2
To be fair, I've never met a SV who became an SV because the Pope did something bad or scandalous.

All the SV's I've ever met have been convinced that the Pope, or Popes have promoted heresy in a public way either by speaking about it in a public or writing about it, when they knew those writings would be published.

So the SV's argument is more that the CHURCH cannot promulgate error, such as the Jews not needing Christ or the mass being a meal, or all religions being redemptive or religious liberty being more important than truth, or truth being mutable from one age to the next.

If a Traditionalist Pope had covered up sex-crimes, like JP2 did, I would pretty much bet my house that no Traditionalist would use that as an excuse that the Papacy had fallen.  Corruption is one thing.  Heresy is another.

SVs care that new Church is a different and contradictory religion to the faith of their fathers.  And I agree with them.  It is a new and contradictory religion.  Your great grandparents would not recognise it as Catholic.  I went to a Methodist service once as I was invited to the baptism of some Negro friends of mine.  It was indistinguishable from the new mass.
Reply
#3
So are you saying that the current Holy Father is the head of a new institutional church which Teaches things contrary to the Truth?  Whilst also being the true Pope of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?  That just doesn't make sense to me.
Reply
#4
Ggreg will answer for himself,  but I'd say the Church is chock full of churchmen that are determined to ruin the One, Holy, and Apostolic Church, and want to kick Our Lord to the curb. I see us all infected by what St. Sr. Lucy called diabolical disorientation, some more than others. That's why I believe this will take Divine Intervention.

tim
Reply
#5
(09-22-2011, 10:18 AM)timoose Wrote: Ggreg will answer for himself,  but I'd say the Church is chock full of churchmen that are determined to ruin the One, Holy, and Apostolic Church, and want to kick Our Lord to the curb. I see us all infected by what St. Sr. Lucy called diabolical disorientation, some more than others. That's why I believe this will take Divine Intervention.

tim

I'm not denying that there are many wicked men in the Church (though I honestly think most today are simply weak).  However, to say that they all belong to a different church in which the Pope is both Pope of the new church and THE Church simply doesn't work.  The Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.  She is the exact same today as she was two millennia ago.  The only difference is the men who are in today and even they they are not that different.. man was weak and frail two centuries ago as well.
Reply
#6
Smurf, old boy I thought I'd neatly gotten 'round saying that, and gave some comfort. The Church is stiil here, it's just some are enemies with in, and as you've pointed out, some are weak and do not oppose them. If this isn't the worst time n the Church then it's equal to it.

tim
Reply
#7
(09-22-2011, 09:48 AM)City Smurf Wrote: So are you saying that the current Holy Father is the head of a new institutional church which Teaches things contrary to the Truth?  Whilst also being the true Pope of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?  That just doesn't make sense to me.

The current Holy Father is the holder of the keys. As St. Peter himself denied Christ three times, the conciliar popes are doing pretty much the same thing - only the repercussions are much worse. 

That's it in a nutshell.
Reply
#8
There have always been and always will be enemies within the Church. Some out of ignorance, some out of trying to be nice and welcoming, and some are actually out to destroy Her.

Diabolical disorientation is probably true. But a less ominous and spooky term, "modernism" is a fitting synonym.

Now most people don't have a clue that JPII has kissed a Koran or BXVI has been photographed reading one. Being offended by this is nonsense in my view.

And I blame the SSPX for this hyper-sensitivity to use as fuel to point out flaws. In many ways they have done more damage than good. They could have stuck around and insisted that the Faith not be so modernized. Or at least some ought to do double duty and hang out at their local parishes fighting the good fight IMHO. But all water under the proverbial bridge.

I also think that this hyper-concern of not being a sede is borne from being out of the mainstream of the Church.

To me, the strongest argument for the sede position is the calling of a council when everything seemed peachy, the giving up of the Papal Tiara at auction to raise money for the UN, and the Pauline Missal and all the nonsense that followed.

I can forgive the pope kissing a Koran, he kissed the ground everytime his plane landed, while still somewhat youthful for goodness sakes. We live in an era that good PR demands some of these gestures including visiting Synagogues. This is not the problem.

What is the problem is endless dialogue which is a no win situation from the get go, and the silliness tolerated and encouraged by friutcakes as pertains the Liturgy. Where the rubber meets the road, and the encouragement of a man centered faith, where one clocks in for an hour every Sunday. If they even bother to do that.

I also think it is flawed to think that conservative NO Catholics, who have no choice but to be that, thinks the pope can do no wrong. That is an awfully wide net the writer casts. Utterly ridiculous. While the SSPX, based on many posts I've read on forums like this, seem to be Sede in every way, except in name.

I will tell you another thing that makes some take the sede position. This consistent chipping away and watering down by taking two steps forward, for evil, and one step back, to hoodwink the Faithful that everything is OK. This is a Communist tactic and one of Lenin's favorite sayings, or idioms.

Call me a cynic, but I think Humane Vitae was designed to be the one step in retreat to foment support for the Pauline Missal among Faithful Catholics that would be introduced the follwing year.
Reply
#9
The round does not den CHRIST. Anyway you will do what you so
if u thi k kissin the earth is the same as kissing a book that has resulted in he enslavement o millions of Catholics the destruction of the church in almost ever land is adherents ocupied, and a book that denies CHRIST, h holy TRi ity and the True God
well
guess we should just stop while we are ahead here
not much else to say really
move along
Reply
#10
(09-22-2011, 07:34 AM)City Smurf Wrote: I still abhor and detest the all too common language directed at the Holy Father and Rome and I still have a great distaste in my mouth at the talk of the Pope being Pope of two religions.

I find this sort of thing highly distressing too.  It makes me feel sick.  It is difficult to post in a reasonable and charitable manner when feeling this way.  It is difficult to understand the the perspective of others when one feels so strongly about the subject.  It is good that you are trying.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)