How would you feel about an Eastern Catholic Pontiff?
#31
(02-13-2012, 03:39 PM)aquinas138 Wrote:
(02-13-2012, 01:24 PM)Tim Wrote: I have thought about this more than once. I think it is necessary for the West. I I suspect if the Consecration occurs before it is too late, the next Pope will be Russian Orthodox Catholic. What has happened with the split is the rational side is the west, and the mystical side is the east. The Church is both. You know the old joke the Orthodox put a veil over it, incense it, and call it a Mystery, well, we need that.  Reason a very limited and flawed tool, has led us to this point. St. Thomas Aquinas' valuable work by it 's very action eventually led to Nature being falsely explained by reason, as if God's world was divorced from Him. We can see it clearly today in everything. It appears to me we need to return to more fear and trembling of God.


tim

Hear, hear!  The manualist tradition of theology is a very dry way of explaining the Faith, and a rediscovery of authentic mystical theology would be good for the Church, particularly the liturgy.

Has dogmatic theology -- the truths of our faith -- been better explained since the death of the manualist tradtion (and Scholasticism along with it), which occured around 1965?  No, and instead we are now left with an increasing amount of novelties (e.g., "the Church as communion"), which are never fully explained.  The ambiguity and confusion makes it extremely difficult to reconcile the Church's new teachings/understanding with what she taught before the Second Vatican Council.  Romano Amerio's Iota Unum details the death of Thomism (which had been codified in the 1917 CIC, by the Apostolic Constitution Deus Scientiarum Dominus of Pope Pius XI, and reaffirmed by Pope Pius XII in his Encyclical, Humani Generis) in the Latin Church since Vatican II.

Theological truths and conclusions, which are based upon the truths of revelation and on human reason, are and remain valid and demand assent by the faithful.  This method of developing the sacred science cannot be rashly done away with without doing grave harm to both current and future (i.e. more explicit) Church doctrine.

Mystical theology (which deals with contemplative prayer and the experiences of the mystics) is actually its own branch and is dependent upon dogmatic theology (positive - Scripture and the Fathers; speculative - theological reasoning) as well as moral theology.  It is also complemented by ascetical theology (the science of the spiritual life).  Aside from culling from ascetical theology, the Liturgy could also benefit from bringing back the 83% of the orations (in their original forms) which were either excluded from (64%) or substantially changed in (19%) the Novus Ordo Missae and which clearly taught the Catholic Faith.

The near-extinction of Thomism and of the method of doing theology (positive-speculative), solemnly approved by Pope St. Pius X (and given the loftiest of praise by over three dozen Pontiffs), have played a decisive role in leading up to today's sad state of Catholic theology.
Reply
#32
I don't know. There are some valid criticisms to be made of neo-scholasticism.
Reply
#33
Wasn't that the premise of The Shoes of the Fisherman?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063599/

That movie was regrettable. Let's hope that the hypothetical would go better.
Reply
#34
Arguably, the Manualist tradition died waaaaay before 1965; the aftermath of V2 is the result of the decadence of that tradition, particularly of the rationalist variety present in the 19th century.  There is a strong pattern pre-60's strict Manualists turning very quickly into Modernists.  The Manual tradition is good, but it is not perfect, and ultimately has given us the present crisis.
Reply
#35
Manualist vs post-V2 is not the way to frame this. No one said we should replace manualism with modernism.

It has been suggested that we could benefit from being exposed to more legitimate mystical and liturgical theology, and an Eastern pontiff could help bring this about.
Reply
#36
He should be Italian. I'm not too much a fan of this whole school of thought wanting the pope to non-Italian/ not one of Roman Patrician stock. It's fitting that the Bishop of Rome be Roman, not either a northern barbarian :LOL: or effeminte easterner :P.
Reply
#37
(02-14-2012, 12:45 PM)dueSicile Wrote: He should be Italian. I'm not too much a fan of this whole school of thought wanting the pope to non-Italian/ not one of Roman Patrician stock. It's fitting that the Bishop of Rome be Roman, not either a northern barbarian :LOL: or effeminte easterner :P.

Even though St. Peter was not of "Roman Patrician stock"?
Reply
#38
(02-13-2012, 05:35 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
(02-13-2012, 03:39 PM)aquinas138 Wrote:
(02-13-2012, 01:24 PM)Tim Wrote: I have thought about this more than once. I think it is necessary for the West. I I suspect if the Consecration occurs before it is too late, the next Pope will be Russian Orthodox Catholic. What has happened with the split is the rational side is the west, and the mystical side is the east. The Church is both. You know the old joke the Orthodox put a veil over it, incense it, and call it a Mystery, well, we need that.  Reason a very limited and flawed tool, has led us to this point. St. Thomas Aquinas' valuable work by it 's very action eventually led to Nature being falsely explained by reason, as if God's world was divorced from Him. We can see it clearly today in everything. It appears to me we need to return to more fear and trembling of God.


tim

Hear, hear!  The manualist tradition of theology is a very dry way of explaining the Faith, and a rediscovery of authentic mystical theology would be good for the Church, particularly the liturgy.

Has dogmatic theology -- the truths of our faith -- been better explained since the death of the manualist tradtion (and Scholasticism along with it), which occured around 1965?  No, and instead we are now left with an increasing amount of novelties (e.g., "the Church as communion"), which are never fully explained.  The ambiguity and confusion makes it extremely difficult to reconcile the Church's new teachings/understanding with what she taught before the Second Vatican Council.  Romano Amerio's Iota Unum details the death of Thomism (which had been codified in the 1917 CIC, by the Apostolic Constitution Deus Scientiarum Dominus of Pope Pius XI, and reaffirmed by Pope Pius XII in his Encyclical, Humani Generis) in the Latin Church since Vatican II.

Theological truths and conclusions, which are based upon the truths of revelation and on human reason, are and remain valid and demand assent by the faithful.  This method of developing the sacred science cannot be rashly done away with without doing grave harm to both current and future (i.e. more explicit) Church doctrine.

Mystical theology (which deals with contemplative prayer and the experiences of the mystics) is actually its own branch and is dependent upon dogmatic theology (positive - Scripture and the Fathers; speculative - theological reasoning) as well as moral theology.  It is also complemented by ascetical theology (the science of the spiritual life).  Aside from culling from ascetical theology, the Liturgy could also benefit from bringing back the 83% of the orations (in their original forms) which were either excluded from (64%) or substantially changed in (19%) the Novus Ordo Missae and which clearly taught the Catholic Faith.

The near-extinction of Thomism and of the method of doing theology (positive-speculative), solemnly approved by Pope St. Pius X (and given the loftiest of praise by over three dozen Pontiffs), have played a decisive role in leading up to today's sad state of Catholic theology.

What you have written has nothing to do with what I wrote.

tim
Reply
#39
(02-14-2012, 01:13 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote:
(02-14-2012, 12:45 PM)dueSicile Wrote: He should be Italian. I'm not too much a fan of this whole school of thought wanting the pope to non-Italian/ not one of Roman Patrician stock. It's fitting that the Bishop of Rome be Roman, not either a northern barbarian :LOL: or effeminte easterner :P.

Even though St. Peter was not of "Roman Patrician stock"?

He was working on getting Romans to be Catholic so they could take over.

I was mostly being a smart alec, but I would in truth prefer a Roman Pope. Most of the the greats have been Italians.
Reply
#40
(02-14-2012, 01:16 PM)dueSicile Wrote:
(02-14-2012, 01:13 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote:
(02-14-2012, 12:45 PM)dueSicile Wrote: He should be Italian. I'm not too much a fan of this whole school of thought wanting the pope to non-Italian/ not one of Roman Patrician stock. It's fitting that the Bishop of Rome be Roman, not either a northern barbarian :LOL: or effeminte easterner :P.

Even though St. Peter was not of "Roman Patrician stock"?

He was working on getting Romans to be Catholic so they could take over.

Evidence?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)