ORthodox perspective of Traditionalist Catholics
#21
(05-12-2012, 06:39 PM)kingtheoden Wrote: The first few lines are jumbled nonsense meant to attack authentic Catholicism:

And where exactly would one look to find "authentic" Catholicism these days? Bishop Fellay? Bishop Williamson? The Vatican with it's clown masses and laypeople communing each other? Perhaps if you could point us in the right direction the attacks would be a little less nonsensical.  LOL

(05-12-2012, 06:39 PM)kingtheoden Wrote: This is full of contradictions: If traditionalists have become separatists for disobeying the Pope (who according to this hetetical schismatic writer is the source of tradition), what does that say of the Easterners who to this day claim to excommunicate the Holy Father?
 

Any bishop who ceases to hold the Orthodox Faith has separated themselves, regardless of which throne they sit upon. On the other hand, on pain of eternal damnation you are required to believe that it's impossible for the Pope to teach heresy and that you must give consent in issues of faith and morals even when not taught ex cathedra.

The point is the SSPX are denying your own dogmas by not submitting to the Pope. They are in essence destroying the very thing they propose to save. Of course for us it proposes no issues for our faith, whereas for you it absolutely destroys the very foundations of your ecclesiology and undermines any justification for your continued separation from us.

(05-12-2012, 06:39 PM)kingtheoden Wrote: In addition, this assessment betrays a rather blunt and profound confusion regarding the Papacy, as well as the importance of tradition in the Church.  It is just plain wrong and there is no need to delineate the specifics.
 

The documents of the papacy are pretty clear. As to the importance of Tradition that also is plainly obvious. For Catholics Tradition is whatever the men who currently constitute the Magisterium says it is. Works fantastic when it's defining things you agree with, not so well when it's redefining things believed for centuries. 

(05-12-2012, 06:39 PM)kingtheoden Wrote: Easterners have a massive pride problem that approaches the blindness of the Jews.

LOL LOL LOL

Take a look at the Dictatus Papae and tell me who is prideful! That being said, if the Roman faithful had been a little more prideful maybe they wouldn't have rolled over like dumb sheep while the Second Vatican Council gutted the faith they had received from their fathers. Perhaps that's a subject for another thread......


(05-12-2012, 06:39 PM)kingtheoden Wrote: The loss in 1453 was, in my view, Divine punishment for their intrigue against the West, who came to their aid and fought their own ****ing wars.  It was my ancestors in France, England and Italy who fought in the Holy Land while these scumbags were busying themselves with fantasies as to why the Roman Church was the seat of the enemy.  Not to mention trading with the enemy.

Would you say the destruction of your Church since Vatican II and all that has followed such as the pedophilia scandal and the cover up are Divine punishment for something? Perhaps the intrigue of the Unia?

Reply
#22
(05-12-2012, 09:35 PM)kingtheoden Wrote: Respectfully, Melkite, you know I am refering to the Eastern schismatics.  The sui juris bodies within the Catholic Church are in communion with the universal Roman Church.  With that said, many have become nests of neo-Eastern Schismatism or Eastern Novus Ordoism.  But that is for a different discussion. 

No one who is of the Tridentine Rite is saying that, for example Greeks, need to drop the Divine Liturgy in favor of the TLM.  Rites of direct Apostolic lineage are beautiful elements of this garden of life, which is the Church.  But your statement is unfair because I am relying on facts, not emotion, which is an unfortunate trait of those who seek to undermine the Petrine Mission and the Primacy of Rome.

You may have only been speaking about the Orthodox.  I was merely pointing out that the Latins, especially traditionalists often times, have their own massive pride problem and don't really have any business pointing fingers.
Reply
#23
Silouan makes excellent points, IMHO.

We trads have a problem in reconciling all traditions, including obedience to a Pope who doesn't care enough about tradition.

I don't agree with him 100%, but this is not an issue to be dismissed.
Reply
#24
Melkite, we are reduced to maybe a few million and that is being generous.

That we speak with confidence and no compromise is not pride.  We represent God's Church whose dioceses have been run over by child rapists and satanists.  It is not a time to cutely spin out perspectives.

With that said, I do not disagree that there are personal issues of pride/lust/covetousness in authentic Catholic communities.  However, no one is without sin and it is a ruse of the modernists to start a sort of inquisition of Traditional centers, as though they were some kind of encampments of Neo-Albigensians.

Silouan,

I understand where you are coming from and do not expect to turn your mind quickly; you are raising valid, reasonable points.  But consider, for example, my parish: a dry walled chapel of maybe 1200 families.  Our Rector preached against Vatican II, against the modern assault on the family, and has made himself available for various devotions that have been forgotten in the Novus Ordo.

There are enclaves of parishes that are keeping to the faith of the Fathers- and even have been granted outright jurisdiction.

Regarding ex catherda statements and disobedience:  The concept of Papal Infallibility has become warped in many circles, particularly those who are former Protestants who still, operationally speaking, are Protestants with weird Papological views.  The Pope can do a lot of things independent of the Faith, or tragically as we have seen, involving the Faith.  But solemnly, as Pope, teaching error is impossible.  That is what we believe.

The Pope, tragically, can go off and be a Rock Star or secular author and spout off all kinds of garbage.  This does bring scandal to the office, but it is not for me to focus on it.  James wrote very well why it is wrong to go down the route of attempting to ascertain the subjective state of a Pope; all we can do is pray and teach the true Faith.

Regarding the collapse of the institutional Church in the West: Yes, of course this is mega-punishment.  For the homosexual rings nurtured and defended.  For the compromise with the world.  For having such a high role and like the Jews, spitting upon Christ.  So absolutely, we are being punished like never before because this is a spiritual chastisement that is overwelming to contemplate in number of souls lost.
Reply
#25
(05-12-2012, 11:01 PM)Silouan Wrote: And where exactly would one look to find "authentic" Catholicism these days? Bishop Fellay? Bishop Williamson? The Vatican with it's clown masses and laypeople communing each other? Perhaps if you could point us in the right direction the attacks would be a little less nonsensical.  LOL

Easy. The Catechism of the Council of Trent, for starters. Or, as the First Vatican Council declared:

Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution on the Faith  (1870), DZ 1792. Wrote:Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power  [magisterium], to be believed as divinely revealed.

(05-12-2012, 11:01 PM)Silouan Wrote: Any bishop who ceases to hold the Orthodox Faith has separated themselves, regardless of which throne they sit upon.

Indeed. The so called "Orthodox" have separated themselves from the one, true Catholic Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, through pertinacious schism, attacks against the Holy See, denial of the apostolic doctrine of Roman Primacy, denial of essential points of Faith (just because Rome said the same), and not seeing marriage as an always indisoluble bound until death, admitting people to re-"marry" who were divorced after adultery. Schism and heresy lead to Hell.

(05-12-2012, 11:01 PM)Silouan Wrote: On the other hand, on pain of eternal damnation you are required to believe that it's impossible for the Pope to teach heresy and that you must give consent in issues of faith and morals even when not taught ex cathedra.

Which I and many others believe and do.

(05-12-2012, 11:01 PM)Silouan Wrote: The point is the SSPX are denying your own dogmas by not submitting to the Pope. They are in essence destroying the very thing they propose to save. Of course for us it proposes no issues for our faith, whereas for you it absolutely destroys the very foundations of your ecclesiology and undermines any justification for your continued separation from us.

Not everyone agrees with the SSPX position. You can find several threads on this topic throughout Fisheaters, even in the archives.

(05-12-2012, 11:01 PM)Silouan Wrote: The documents of the papacy are pretty clear. As to the importance of Tradition that also is plainly obvious. For Catholics Tradition is whatever the men who currently constitute the Magisterium says it is. Works fantastic when it's defining things you agree with, not so well when it's redefining things believed for centuries. 

Actually, this is what Tradition means:

Fr. John Hardon SJ, Dictionary Wrote:Tradition first means all of divine revelation, from the dawn of human history to the end of the apostolic age, as passed on from one generation of believers to the next, and as preserved under divine guidance by the Church established by Christ. Sacred Tradition more technically also means, within this transmitted revelation, that part of God's revealed word which is not contained in Sacred Scripture.

(05-12-2012, 11:01 PM)Silouan Wrote: LOL LOL LOL

Take a look at the Dictatus Papae and tell me who is prideful! That being said, if the Roman faithful had been a little more prideful maybe they wouldn't have rolled over like dumb sheep while the Second Vatican Council gutted the faith they had received from their fathers. Perhaps that's a subject for another thread......

I do not see what is so funny about the powers of the papacy, which is of divine origin, descending from the Rock of St. Peter. That being said, would you like me to criticize your Russian prelates for collaborating with the KGB? Or any other faults of Eastern schismatic laity? I would remind you that this is a Roman Catholic forum.

(05-12-2012, 11:01 PM)Silouan Wrote: Would you say the destruction of your Church since Vatican II and all that has followed such as the pedophilia scandal and the cover up are Divine punishment for something? Perhaps the intrigue of the Unia?

The Church "destroyed" since Vatican II? Absolutely not. Scourged and afflicted, yes. But we have survived 300 years of Roman persecutions, and before the Edict of Milan, 30 of 33 Roman Pontiffs faced martyrdom. The Romans who had issued edicts trying to eradicate the Church eventually converted. For 200 years, barbarian peoples destroyed the Western Empire, but were eventually civilized and converted. For centuries, Muslims have tried to conquer the Church, and still have not. The same cannot be said for the East, which fell in 1453. Heresy and schism may have afflicted the Church, but the Church is still here, and we are still here.

You and and other Eastern schismatics are not free from scandals now, are you? It should be of no surprise that many Catholics are sinners and people who have made mistakes.
Reply
#26
(05-12-2012, 09:22 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
Quote:The problem is that both the Ecclesia Dei and Sedevacantist stance exaggerate the infallible authority of the pope or the obedience owed to him.

The Bellarmine quote is not being read in context. It refers to resisting an evil command of the pope, not resisting liturgy, laws, discipline, encyclicals, and so on.

Thank you for pointing this out. I see this quote being used out of context more and more. The first time I saw this quote, and other similar quotes, I saw it separated from its context. They had me convinced that the resistance approach was correct. But once I read St. Robert Bellarmine's entire work for myself, with these quotes in context, I realized what he was really saying.
Reply
#27
(05-12-2012, 11:23 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: Silouan makes excellent points, IMHO.

We trads have a problem in reconciling all traditions, including obedience to a Pope who doesn't care enough about tradition.

I don't agree with him 100%, but this is not an issue to be dismissed.

This is the point of the OP. The reconciliation of modern popes to their predecessors teachings. I do not 100% agree with the short article either. And from this we see in the responses, a division between those:

1) Who follow the modern popes entirely believing them to have not in any way departed from Tradition whether directly or indirectly. Likewise they take VII in the 'light of tradition'. They claim themselves Catholic.

2) Groups like the SSPX who take a middle ground following the Popes of the modern age as though they have not departed from Tradition, but reject the papal approved VII teachings which they consider as departing from tradition. They claim themselves Catholic.

3) Sedevacantists who reject modern popes and VII, who they say have departed from Tradition. They claim themselves Catholic.

4) Orthodox who reject Papacy since Photian schism and filioque. They consider themselves Catholic (in the sense of being THE church of Christ)

Basically the point of this post, the OP, and my recent verbal diarrhea has been to find out which of the above options are the CHURCH.
Reply
#28
(05-12-2012, 11:59 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
(05-12-2012, 11:01 PM)Silouan Wrote: And where exactly would one look to find "authentic" Catholicism these days? Bishop Fellay? Bishop Williamson? The Vatican with it's clown masses and laypeople communing each other? Perhaps if you could point us in the right direction the attacks would be a little less nonsensical.  LOL

Easy. The Catechism of the Council of Trent, for starters. Or, as the First Vatican Council declared:

Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution on the Faith  (1870), DZ 1792. Wrote:Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power  [magisterium], to be believed as divinely revealed.

And what to do when those solemn pronouncements clearly contradict each other?


(05-12-2012, 11:59 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
(05-12-2012, 11:01 PM)Silouan Wrote: Any bishop who ceases to hold the Orthodox Faith has separated themselves, regardless of which throne they sit upon.

Indeed. The so called "Orthodox" have separated themselves from the one, true Catholic Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, through pertinacious schism, attacks against the Holy See, denial of the apostolic doctrine of Roman Primacy, denial of essential points of Faith (just because Rome said the same), and not seeing marriage as an always indisoluble bound until death, admitting people to re-"marry" who were divorced after adultery. Schism and heresy lead to Hell.

Not according to the infallible Magisterium of the Catholic Church as expressed in papal statements and conciliar documents from Vatican II onward.  Smile

(05-12-2012, 11:59 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
(05-12-2012, 11:01 PM)Silouan Wrote: On the other hand, on pain of eternal damnation you are required to believe that it's impossible for the Pope to teach heresy and that you must give consent in issues of faith and morals even when not taught ex cathedra.

Which I and many others believe and do.

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" - Pope Eugene IV

"For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation." - Pope John Paul II

So which of your infallible pontiffs do you follow on this teaching?  LOL

(05-12-2012, 11:59 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
(05-12-2012, 11:01 PM)Silouan Wrote: The point is the SSPX are denying your own dogmas by not submitting to the Pope. They are in essence destroying the very thing they propose to save. Of course for us it proposes no issues for our faith, whereas for you it absolutely destroys the very foundations of your ecclesiology and undermines any justification for your continued separation from us.

Not everyone agrees with the SSPX position. You can find several threads on this topic throughout Fisheaters, even in the archives.

Yes, but many do. What do you think of them? Do you not see a fundamental inconsistency in their position?


(05-12-2012, 11:59 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
(05-12-2012, 11:01 PM)Silouan Wrote: LOL LOL LOL

Take a look at the Dictatus Papae and tell me who is prideful! That being said, if the Roman faithful had been a little more prideful maybe they wouldn't have rolled over like dumb sheep while the Second Vatican Council gutted the faith they had received from their fathers. Perhaps that's a subject for another thread......

I do not see what is so funny about the powers of the papacy, which is of divine origin, descending from the Rock of St. Peter. That being said, would you like me to criticize your Russian prelates for collaborating with the KGB? Or any other faults of Eastern schismatic laity? I would remind you that this is a Roman Catholic forum.

That it is. I suppose that means you're only able to criticize each other? Either way, the rest of this statement is nothing but an excuse to throw insults. It certainly has nothing to do with the point I was making.

(05-12-2012, 11:59 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
(05-12-2012, 11:01 PM)Silouan Wrote: Would you say the destruction of your Church since Vatican II and all that has followed such as the pedophilia scandal and the cover up are Divine punishment for something? Perhaps the intrigue of the Unia?

The Church "destroyed" since Vatican II? Absolutely not. Scourged and afflicted, yes. But we have survived 300 years of Roman persecutions, and before the Edict of Milan, 30 of 33 Roman Pontiffs faced martyrdom. The Romans who had issued edicts trying to eradicate the Church eventually converted. For 200 years, barbarian peoples destroyed the Western Empire, but were eventually civilized and converted. For centuries, Muslims have tried to conquer the Church, and still have not. The same cannot be said for the East, which fell in 1453. Heresy and schism may have afflicted the Church, but the Church is still here, and we are still here.

You and and other Eastern schismatics are not free from scandals now, are you? It should be of no surprise that many Catholics are sinners and people who have made mistakes.

What in the world are you talking about? Pretty sure we're still here and going strong.

[Image: 172832808.jpg]
Reply
#29
(05-13-2012, 09:01 PM)Silouan Wrote: "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" - Pope Eugene IV

"For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation." - Pope John Paul II

So which of your infallible pontiffs do you follow on this...

Actually, those two are easy to reconcile.  If you keep reading Cantate Domino of Pope Eugene it says "unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

John Paul II, whether he knew it or not, or was trying to hide it, was describing infused knowledge and a direct, gratuitous gift of God in an effort to gain them entrance into the Church necessarily before death. .  St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that if none are around to instruct someone an Angel of God will show up to instruct them.  Salvation is accessible because direct action by God to give them knowledge and access to the Church is accessible through a special grace and action of God.

Pope Eugene clearly established the parameters.  JPII was not able to cross them even though he wrote something ambiguous that people without  a sacramental understanding or Thomistic knowledge would believe mistakenly was  in opposition to the previous statement. 

You can follow Pope Eugene without difficulty.  You can't follow JPII without Pope Eugene before him and positively be sure of the orthodox understanding.  JPII is actually unnecessary in his explanation of things.  He simply covered non-infallibly an explanation of already infallibly defined matters in a confused manner.  But he didn't actually state anything heretical or bind anyone to his formula or anathematize the Cantate Domino definition. 



Reply
#30
(05-13-2012, 10:36 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(05-13-2012, 09:01 PM)Silouan Wrote: "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" - Pope Eugene IV

"For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation." - Pope John Paul II

So which of your infallible pontiffs do you follow on this...

Actually, those two are easy to reconcile.  If you keep reading Cantate Domino of Pope Eugene it says "unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

John Paul II, whether he knew it or not, or was trying to hide it, was describing infused knowledge and a direct, gratuitous gift of God in an effort to gain them entrance into the Church necessarily before death. .  St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that if none are around to instruct someone an Angel of God will show up to instruct them.  Salvation is accessible because direct action by God to give them knowledge and access to the Church is accessible through a special grace and action of God.

Pope Eugene clearly established the parameters.  JPII was not able to cross them even though he wrote something ambiguous that people without  a sacramental understanding or Thomistic knowledge would believe mistakenly was  in opposition to the previous statement. 

You can follow Pope Eugene without difficulty.  You can't follow JPII without Pope Eugene before him and positively be sure of the orthodox understanding.   JPII is actually unnecessary in his explanation of things.  He simply covered non-infallibly an explanation of already infallibly defined matters in a confused manner.  But he didn't actually state anything heretical or bind anyone to his formula or anathematize the Cantate Domino definition. 



Spoken like a true modern Roman Catholic. I spent years on CAF with Catholics explaining to me that various papal statement don't really mean what they say. The funny thing is they would normally come up with the opposite actual meaning from you. 8)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)