PBS on the Radical Nuns.
#31
The best approach is to admit Pope Leo XIII was right:
Quote: The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differfrom her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them. It does not need many words, beloved son, to prove the falsity of these ideas if the nature and origin of the doctrine which the Church proposes are recalled to mind.

Beating around the bush will fail.  Lying, saying there was nothing wrong with the documents, will fail.  How do you deal with the authority given to "territorial authorities" to include novelties in the N.O.?  You have to take it away.  But you are now contradicting Vatican II and altering its Mass.

Quote: We can't just get rid of it.
And if the Pope came out tomorrow, and said that Vat. II had been a failure, and put it on the Index of Forbidden Books, what would be wrong with that?  I know that certain radical nuns could no longer claim they have support for their heresies.

So why can't we be rid of it?
Reply
#32
Quote: How do you deal with the authority given to "territorial authorities" to include novelties in the N.O.?  You have to take it away.  But you are now contradicting Vatican II and altering its Mass.

Two points:

1. I'm all for taking away indults that have led to impious liturgies. Taking these things away will not be denying the documents of Vatican II in anyway -- they will simply be administrative acts.

2. Let us not kid ourselves with the belief that the Novus Ordo as it is widely celebrated is a Mass true to Sacrosanctum Concilium.

Quote:And if the Pope came out tomorrow, and said that Vat. II had been a failure, and put it on the Index of Forbidden Books, what would be wrong with that?

Nothing per se, he'd just have to deal with a very widespread schism. Let us slowly raise the temperature of the water to cook the frogs.
Reply
#33
(05-10-2012, 05:15 PM)Ray M Facere Wrote:
Quote:But what's "the Faith" anyway? It's certainly not the same today as it was prior to 1962. Rome has screwed up big time on that one, not me.

I'm sure Our Lord didn't "seem" like the Messiah when he was in the tomb either. Yet there He was. At least one person held the Faith and knew her Son could not break His divine Word.

Failed analogy.

The Christian faith is not meant to be "in the tomb", occult.
Reply
#34
Quote:The Christian faith is not meant to be "in the tomb", occult.

"In the tomb" does not mean occult. Christ's body was still visible when it was taken from the Cross, no?
Reply
#35
(05-10-2012, 05:37 PM)Ray M Facere Wrote:
Quote:The Christian faith is not meant to be "in the tomb", occult.

"In the tomb" does not mean occult. Christ's body was still visible when it was taken from the Cross, no?

Your analogy was predicated on the fact that Jesus didn't seem to be the messiah because he was dead, in the tomb. In likewise manner, the Catholic faith may not seem the same faith today as it was before because it is dead, in the tomb, so to speak, hidden under many heresies.

The analogy fails because the gospel is meant to be objective and clear to all after its promulgation.
Reply
#36
Quote:  Let us not kid ourselves with the belief that the Novus Ordo as it is widely celebrated is a Mass true to Sacrosanctum Concilium.
I don't kid myself.  I just read it.  It says if the territorial authority approves of an innovation, it is approved. THAT is the Mass of Vatican II.  Same with the Latin.  Same with the Priest facing the people and pointing his butt to the Lord.  If the territorial authority approves it, it is the Mass of Vat. II.

That authority has to be removed.  And when it is, you correct a mistake in Vatican II.

Quote:  I'm all for taking away indults that have led to impious liturgies.
The "indult" is Scrosanctum Concilium, which let's the territorial authority include novelties in the Mass.  Yes, take it away and put it on the Index of Forbidden Books.

And if we get a schism where the "radical nuns" leave, all the better.
Reply
#37
Quote:The analogy fails because the gospel is meant to be objective and clear to all after its promulgation.

Isn't it? You're here on Fisheaters.com a Traditional Catholic forum. Seems pretty clear to me and it must have to you too at one point. Look there have always been theological disputes -- there always will be theological disputes. Let us not be too concerned with it. As laymen, let us just provide for our family, spiritually and temporally, fulfill our obligations to God and pass on the simplicities of the Faith to our children. The fact that we are here and we argue about obscure phrases in Lumen Gentium, etc. is probably more than we should be doing -- our saving grace is simply our love for the Church that motivates such things. At the end of the day, I just want to be a simple Catholic father and that's it -- I think you'd get over your funk if you looked towards the more simple things too, Vetus. May God grant you peace.
Reply
#38
There's nothing "obscure" about the change of faith that has occured, it's clear to anyone with eyes to see. Not even Rome denies it anymore.

I appreciate your sentiments, Ray, but what you did was just a subtle cop-out, playind the humility card.
Reply
#39
Even Dawkins recognized it after Cardinal Pell (supposedly a conservative?) denied the Fall.  And that is the nucleus of this crisis.  A denial of Original Sin, probably caused by the belief (or fear) of those in the Church that Evolution was right.  So no Adam and Eve, no Fall, no Jesus.  A crisis in the Faith.

And so we get Catechisms getting all worked up beating the straw man that Satanists won't be saved.
Reply
#40
I don't think Cardinal Pell ever denied the Fall.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)