Pope John Paul II and the Animist Ritual in Togoville, 1985
#31
But if those Popes behave as though all religions have some good in them and all "good" men can be saved regardless of their religion, which is exactly how they do behave, then it would be utterly meaningless and silly for them to bind the faithful to anything.  Which is why they haven't bound them.

Why would God send me to Hell for using birth control when I already had four children provided I was a nice kind person who gave money to poor and was otherwise decent?

God is not a pedant.  That much is clear from the Gospels.  If there are rules then there are reasons for those rules.  It would be an utter travesty of justice for God to condemn a Catholic for breaking one command of a Pope when the Pope himself breaks commands of other Popes and God is saving Protestants, Jews and Animists who explicitly reject the Papacy, Christ himself, and major dogmas like the sacraments, the Trinity and Transubstantiation.

By praying at Assisi JP2 broke the first commandment.  Of that there can be no doubt.  If he, without any sign of repentance can be named "blessed", and even canonised in the future, then why can I not break the sixth commandment, which is less important?

If what you are saying is true, newchurch could last another 2000 years, simply by never invoking infallibility again.  Why would they since they clearly don't believe in it.  You cannot have infallibility unless truth is absolute which none of the last few Popes have believed.

Newchurch could morph into an entirely new and different religion and the "Pope" would still not have lost the legitimacy of his office.  In fact  they could do away with the Pope altogether and we would still need to "respect the office of the Papacy" which of course could not pronounce any heresy by the simple fact that nobody was in it.
Reply
#32
(10-11-2011, 10:06 AM)ggreg Wrote: By praying at Assisi JP2 broke the first commandment.  Of that there can be no doubt.  If he, without any sign of repentance can be named "blessed", and even canonised in the future, then why can I not break the sixth commandment, which is less important?

Of course, you can break the 6th commandment and still attain salvation.  God may have been merciful to JPII.  Whether he deserves to be publically canonized nonetheless is a different question.  However, I most definitely agree that the canonization of JPII would make for an interesting point in the argument that canonizations are not valid (or at least not in their current form).

(10-11-2011, 10:06 AM)ggreg Wrote: If what you are saying is true, newchurch could last another 2000 years, simply by never invoking infallibility again.  Why would they since they clearly don't believe in it.  You cannot have infallibility unless truth is absolute which none of the last few Popes have believed.

Newchurch could morph into an entirely new and different religion and the "Pope" would still not have lost the legitimacy of his office.  In fact  they could do away with the Pope altogether and we would still need to "respect the office of the Papacy" which of course could not pronounce any heresy by the simple fact that nobody was in it.

The fact of the matter is that there's quite a difference between doing away with the papacy altogether and the current state of the Church.  Ecclesiologically, little has changed in the Church.  What has changed is the teaching of the hierarchy, not the hierarchy itself.  But, as I stated before, there has to be a shelf-life.  Crises happen.  But at some point a crisis like this, a temporary unleashing of the Gates of Hell over the Church, must be seen as at odds with Christ's promise.  There is an extent to both the heresy and to the length of the crisis of heresy that must cross that line.  The problem is that, theologically speaking, we have little to no facts about the details of Christ's promise.  This is why it's very difficult to definitively claim that that promise has been broken at any specific point.
Reply
#33
(10-11-2011, 09:44 AM)Walty Wrote:
(10-11-2011, 07:08 AM)ggreg Wrote: The problem with this is that few Catholics will tell you in advance how bizzaro it needs to get before their rational mind can no longer cope.  99% of priests 100 years ago  would have told you what we are experiencing now was impossible. And that to even consider it as a possibility was an act of despair and a mortal sin. Yet, here we are.

When a prophet forecasts the end of the world and it fails to happen, then most followers say the prophet was wrong or a fraud. Some however make excuses and convince themselves that those who have departed lack faith. Even the little pebble has followers. All this stuff about the papacy existing without a pope for 50 years seems too much of a stretch for me. 

This is the question that I would pose to sedes.  Let's be honest, even the belief that valid popes should fall into heterodoxy for 50 years was thought to be impossible.  At least with this stance, however, the Church hierarchy remains in tact, as it did during other crises, and we can more easily hope for a return to the faith.

What are we to say of the belief that the true Church has fallen into emptiness, while a false church has taken its place?  How can the true Church regain the papacy?  How long can the Seat remain empty before we must logically question whether Christ's promise that Hell should never prevail has been broken?

To put it simply, there is a shelf-life, so to speak, on traditionalism and sedevacantism.  But that shelf-life has to at least be longer with the stance of non-sede traditionalism.

Therein lies my dilemma.

There is a documented prophecy, albeit not sanctioned by the Church, from La Sallette, which stated.  "Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the AntiChrist".  Unthinkable at the time, but in fact, now at least the first part appears to have happened.  In fact as prophecies go, this is one of the most accurate I've ever heard.

Seat of the Antichrist?  Well not yet perhaps.

From where I am standing Rome, has lost the faith.  If they had not lost the faith they would have no problems finding common ground with the SSPX since they would share the same faith.  It is difficult to believe that the SSPX have lost the faith since if you compared what they believe to what Catholics believed in the past it is almost exactly the same.  Rome on the other hand believes and teaches all kinds of differences and stuff so verbose that you can interpret it any which way.  If Rome and the SSPX have the same faith, then there would be no need of a doctrinal preamble.

Heck, even the doctrinal pre-amble needs to be sent back for clarification.  That MUST demonstrate to any clear thinking person how divergent things have become.

I took a Russian Orthodox priest with me once to an SSPX mass and he said, "If the Catholic Church was like this I'd convert tomorrow".  Speaks volumes.  He could see it was not in any way shape or form the same religion.

Likewise at Garabandal we heard these words purportedly from Our Lady.   "Many cardinals, many bishops and many priests are on the road to perdition and are taking many souls with them".  That was published in the mid 1960s.

From where I am standing that was one heck of a call which is why I think Garabandal is probably a true apparition.

- - - - -

What would you do if the next Pope was an out and out modernist.  He didn't declare and define anything, since he did not believe in that anyway.  He simply used his personality and world stage to tell Catholics to join in with the great march forward to point Omega, suggested that using contraception was not that big a deal, that abortion was sometimes the lesser of two evils, and that "in his opinion" all manner of other evils were now OK?

Since he did not declare and define anything you'd be stuck with that person as the Pope.  A bad Pope, but a Pope, nonetheless.

At some stage the whole structure ceases to have a useful purpose.  You would all throw the towel in at some stage if you wanted to retain your sanity.

I find the whole thing mysterious and frustrating.
Reply
#34
(10-11-2011, 10:15 AM)Walty Wrote:
(10-11-2011, 10:06 AM)ggreg Wrote: By praying at Assisi JP2 broke the first commandment.  Of that there can be no doubt.  If he, without any sign of repentance can be named "blessed", and even canonised in the future, then why can I not break the sixth commandment, which is less important?

Of course, you can break the 6th commandment and still attain salvation.  God may have been merciful to JPII.  Whether he deserves to be publically canonized nonetheless is a different question.  However, I most definitely agree that the canonization of JPII would make for an interesting point in the argument that canonizations are not valid (or at least not in their current form).

(10-11-2011, 10:06 AM)ggreg Wrote: If what you are saying is true, newchurch could last another 2000 years, simply by never invoking infallibility again.  Why would they since they clearly don't believe in it.  You cannot have infallibility unless truth is absolute which none of the last few Popes have believed.

Newchurch could morph into an entirely new and different religion and the "Pope" would still not have lost the legitimacy of his office.  In fact  they could do away with the Pope altogether and we would still need to "respect the office of the Papacy" which of course could not pronounce any heresy by the simple fact that nobody was in it.

The fact of the matter is that there's quite a difference between doing away with the papacy altogether and the current state of the Church.  Ecclesiologically, little has changed in the Church.  What has changed is the teaching of the hierarchy, not the hierarchy itself.  But, as I stated before, there has to be a shelf-life.  Crises happen.  But at some point a crisis like this, a temporary unleashing of the Gates of Hell over the Church, must be seen as at odds with Christ's promise.  There is an extent to both the heresy and to the length of the crisis of heresy that must cross that line.  The problem is that, theologically speaking, we have little to no facts about the details of Christ's promise.  This is why it's very difficult to definitively claim that that promise has been broken at any specific point.

OK, accepting your shelf-life argument I would argue that the shelf life must be approximately speaking, at a maximum, a human adult lifetime (from puberty to dementia setting in) for two reasons.

1.  It seems bizarro to judge a "Catholic" soul for the truths they did or did not follow, in a world where 90% of them never came across a priest, bishop or Pope who taught all those truths. In a sense we did not get the "Good News" we got a news blackout.  People saved by Christ would need to be judged like the Jews who lived in pre-Christian times.  Which puts a bit of a dent in the Redemption.

2.  This crisis is universal.  It is not comparable with Catholicism being kicked out of Japan for 300 years.  There is nowhere to turn to where you can find the Church.  Even the SSPX are a lifeboat, not an Ocean Liner.  If the crisis lasts longer than a human lifetime then the SSPX and other Traditionalists have become the de-facto Church.  Christ's promises don't trump objective reality and the feeding of the sheep.  You cannot feed generations of sheep on the hope of some future restoration.

Call it 50 - 60 years.

Let's get ready to Rumble!
Reply
#35
(10-11-2011, 10:55 AM)ggreg Wrote: OK, accepting your shelf-life argument I would argue that the shelf life must be approximately speaking, at a maximum, a human adult lifetime (from puberty to dementia setting in) for two reasons.

1.  It seems bizarro to judge a "Catholic" soul for the truths they did or did not follow, in a world where 90% of them never came across a priest, bishop or Pope who taught all those truths. In a sense we did not get the "Good News" we got a news blackout.  People saved by Christ would need to be judged like the Jews who lived in pre-Christian times.  Which puts a bit of a dent in the Redemption.

2.  This crisis is universal.  It is not comparable with Catholicism being kicked out of Japan for 300 years.  There is nowhere to turn to where you can find the Church.  Even the SSPX are a lifeboat, not an Ocean Liner.  If the crisis lasts longer than a human lifetime then the SSPX and other Traditionalists have become the de-facto Church.  Christ's promises don't trump objective reality and the feeding of the sheep.  You cannot feed generations of sheep on the hope of some future restoration.

Call it 50 - 60 years.

Let's get ready to Rumble!

I think it's difficult to put any specific time limit on it, but if I had to guess I'd agree with you.  The most seemingly logical time frame would be a generation.  My father is almost 50.  He vaguely remembers serving at the TLM as a young boy, but his religious education was that of the Council and the majority of true Catholicism was alien to him by the time he was an adult.  Conservatively speaking, that leaves about 30 years (give or take) for his generation, the first to be destroyed by the Council without knowing any better, to become witnesses to the Church's return to what it should be.  30 years doesn't seem like very much time.

I will say this.  Especially in light of my choice to study systematic and historical theology, I'm aware that this is absolutely unprecedented.  If this isn't resolved by the time I'm an old man (God-willing) I will definitely have some soul-searching to do.  Although, I suspect that many older trads already feel that way.
Reply
#36
I still contend that if heretics can go to heaven and be canonised by the Church, then God obviously doesn't care too much about personal orthodoxy as we thought He did. We all should just relax and enjoy life. Why bother? The only thing that matters is to be sincere and try practicing good.

There's no other way around this dilemma except for sedevacantism which I don't consider a valid option, despite my respect for those Catholics who hold on to that position.
Reply
#37
(10-11-2011, 11:41 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: I still contend that if heretics can go to heaven and be canonised by the Church, then God obviously doesn't care too much about personal orthodoxy as we thought He did.

Or canonizations are not currently subject to the will of God, even if they're technically accurate, i.e. that those canonized are saints, strictly speaking.
Reply
#38
(10-11-2011, 11:41 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: I still contend that if heretics can go to heaven and be canonised by the Church, then God obviously doesn't care too much about personal orthodoxy as we thought He did. We all should just relax and enjoy life. Why bother? The only thing that matters is to be sincere and try practicing good.

There's no other way around this dilemma except for sedevacantism which I don't consider a valid option, despite my respect for those Catholics who hold on to that position.

This is why I actually find myself getting angry at the late Pope. He has scandalised Catholics to the point that it would be best if a letter floated down from Heaven saying that the Principle of Non-Contradiction was hereby revoked and so we shouldn't worry any longer about trying to reconcile the Assisi Gathering with the Council of Florence.

I cannot accept Sedevacantism but feel almost driven against the wall by recent events, especially by the beatification of a Pope who willingly - and probably with a great big grin - took part in a Voodoo ceremony. In my experience when you try to raise the issue the response is one of aggression and calumny, which is hardly helpful.
Reply
#39
"Scotus" Wrote:I cannot accept Sedevacantism but feel almost driven against the wall by recent events, especially by the beatification of a Pope who willingly - and probably with a great big grin took part in a Voodoo ceremony....

I know the feeling, believe me.

With regard to canonizations, the way I see it is that canonizations only touch upon whether the person is in heaven. Whether or not what they did in their life is imitable and good devolves into the realm of prudence and therefore is subject to question.

If JPII is canonized (and I don't personally think he should be), it would be considered by theologians as an infallible pronouncement that the man is in heaven. And I don't think that's hard to believe in itself, considering that one of the things he had going for him was his strong devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary...
Reply
#40
The point of canonisations isn't to give us a heavenly roster. It's to give us examples of outstanding lives of charity to imitate. If JPII is canonized, I can ignore every canonisation because they no longer teach me how to live my life.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)