Pope Calling Our Bluff?
#21
(05-16-2012, 12:54 AM)Melkite Wrote: Traditional Catholicism is still alive and well in the East.  Just sayin'.

There's no Traditional Catholicism with heretical popes and a magisterium that contradicts itself. Having the liturgical and pietistic patrimony of one parcel of the Church intact doesn't mean the faith isn't compromised as a whole. I know some Eastern Catholics like yourself have this inherent difficulty of understanding the universal implications of something like an Ecumenical Council that approved doctrinal novelty to the whole Church and an uninterrupted string of papal magisterium that continues to do the same. Hence, that issue alone should suffice to explain the absurdity of your claim.



Reply
#22
I agree with you on that Mith.
Reply
#23
Me?

I go to any and all Tridentines where the priest has testicles, believes in Adam and eve and refuses to say the new mess
Reply
#24
(05-16-2012, 01:23 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: There's no Traditional Catholicism with heretical popes and a magisterium that contradicts itself. Having the liturgical and pietistic patrimony of one parcel of the Church intact doesn't mean the faith isn't compromised as a whole.

So are you officially stating that Pope Benedict is a heretic?

Are you saying as well that the Catholic faith no longer exists except inside sedevecantist chapels?

Gimme a break man
Reply
#25
(05-16-2012, 01:26 AM)Atomagenesis Wrote:
(05-16-2012, 01:23 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: There's no Traditional Catholicism with heretical popes and a magisterium that contradicts itself. Having the liturgical and pietistic patrimony of one parcel of the Church intact doesn't mean the faith isn't compromised as a whole.

So are you officially stating that Pope Benedict is a heretic?

Are you saying as well that the Catholic faith no longer exists except inside sedevecantist chapels?

Gimme a break man

Banned topic.
Reply
#26
Oh shut up Phil, he is implying it, I'm just calling him out.
Reply
#27
Yup.  And a good thing, too.
Reply
#28
(05-16-2012, 01:15 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote: I think so, Script.  I was actually talking about this with someone just last night.  Keeping in mind that we have no idea what deal exists, if one exists.  But since we have no idea, we are free to speculate.  IF it's a deal that doesn't require the sspx to change anything (in fact, the only change at all would be on Rome's part, at the minumum by "recognizing" the sspx) then refusal is ipso facto schismatic.  Or, sedevacantist.  To say "no deal with Rome under no circumstances" is to either be sede or schismatic.  So that's the choice some people will have to make.  The sspx has gone on the way they've gone on for the exact reason that they would not compromise Tradition.  So if they don't have to compromise Tradition, then there's no difference after a deal from the sspx view.  Excepting the sede stance, NO ONE could say that such an offer would be a bad thing.  No, it would be a great thing for the society to be given faculties within the regularzed structure of the Church without having to change anything.  Only a sede or a schismatic could logically reject that.  

But if the SSPX were told they didn't have to change anything, wouldn't they be reasonable to suspect that this was a false promise, whatever good intentions were behind it?   Rejecting it then would be quite logical, if the changes were in the practice and teaching of the faith.

If Rome accepts the SSPX with no conditions, then Rome would be saying e.g. that "the Novus Ordo mass is a perfectly good mass" but allowing certain Catholics to teach the world that the Novus Ordo mass is (at least in part) un-Catholic.  But surely Rome would never do that, and would at last would suppress SSPX teaching!  Wait,  maybe there would be hope for the SSPX - Rome might just go on saying that truth and error can be happy bedfellows, and all views are just fine in the Catholic Church.  That is really something to hope for.
Reply
#29
(05-16-2012, 01:23 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: There's no Traditional Catholicism with heretical popes and a magisterium that contradicts itself. Having the liturgical and pietistic patrimony of one parcel of the Church intact doesn't mean the faith isn't compromised as a whole. I know some Eastern Catholics like yourself have this inherent difficulty of understanding the universal implications of something like an Ecumenical Council that approved doctrinal novelty to the whole Church and an uninterrupted string of papal magisterium that continues to do the same. Hence, that issue alone should suffice to explain the absurdity of your claim.

You know, bipolar disorder is manageable with medication nowadays.

#elephantintheroom
Reply
#30
(05-16-2012, 02:29 AM)Doce Me Wrote:
(05-16-2012, 01:15 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote: I think so, Script.  I was actually talking about this with someone just last night.  Keeping in mind that we have no idea what deal exists, if one exists.  But since we have no idea, we are free to speculate.  IF it's a deal that doesn't require the sspx to change anything (in fact, the only change at all would be on Rome's part, at the minumum by "recognizing" the sspx) then refusal is ipso facto schismatic.  Or, sedevacantist.  To say "no deal with Rome under no circumstances" is to either be sede or schismatic.  So that's the choice some people will have to make.  The sspx has gone on the way they've gone on for the exact reason that they would not compromise Tradition.  So if they don't have to compromise Tradition, then there's no difference after a deal from the sspx view.  Excepting the sede stance, NO ONE could say that such an offer would be a bad thing.  No, it would be a great thing for the society to be given faculties within the regularzed structure of the Church without having to change anything.  Only a sede or a schismatic could logically reject that.  

But if the SSPX were told they didn't have to change anything, wouldn't they be reasonable to suspect that this was a false promise, whatever good intentions were behind it?   Rejecting it then would be quite logical, if the changes were in the practice and teaching of the faith.

If Rome accepts the SSPX with no conditions, then Rome would be saying e.g. that "the Novus Ordo mass is a perfectly good mass" but allowing certain Catholics to teach the world that the Novus Ordo mass is (at least in part) un-Catholic.  But surely Rome would never do that, and would at last would suppress SSPX teaching!  Wait,  maybe there would be hope for the SSPX - Rome might just go on saying that truth and error can be happy bedfellows, and all views are just fine in the Catholic Church.  That is really something to hope for.

It just becomes another choice in the cafeteria church.

In a very real sense by coming under the umbrella you give legitimacy to the umbrella.  By being one of 31 flavours you support the view of the Baskin Robbins church.

Besides who knows what Rome teaches anymore? One minute it says something, the next something contradictory.  Abortion is wrong but US Politcians who support it are Catholics in good standing and have been for 40 years.  They shake the Pope's hand, receive communion from their Bishops and Cardinals and vote for Obama.

Let's be realistic, the SSPX even if they are left alone (which they won't be) will never have any large influence on policy decisions.

Want a model for what will happen.  See Transalpine Redemptorists for the last 3 years.  Split, sidelined, inert.

People who like smells and bells will come to the masses, but standards will be eroded until there is nothing except the externals to distinguish between Trads and Novus Ordinarians.

Barring a miracle, that is what will happen.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)