Pope Calling Our Bluff?
Holy Mother Church, the Bride of Christ was just described as a rapist and a wife-beater... and people wonder why the Tank is viewed as a cesspool by many.
Well it did cover up a paedophile and homosexual child rape scandal for a number of decades.  A cover-up that went all the way to the top.

But invisible "Church in a box" is innocent of all charges I will grant you that.
(05-15-2012, 10:42 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: Do you think the Pope is within rights to make his demand? Do you think the SSPX has to obey the Pope if there is no compromise of faith and governance (even taking into account that the disagreements of VII etc are not resolved yet)?


And I attend an SSPX chapel (and sing in the men's schola).
Who is "our"? People who have lived through V2 and fought against it like crusaders etc, even if it meant leaving the Church? Some people here seem to want to sound like Vietnam vets... "we lived through it man, you all call us crazy man but you weren't there man..."

... and that's not the only thing those people have in common with Vietnam vets - like loss of perspective and psychological issues. No disrespect to Vietnam vets or "real trads", but come on...  I think even Bishop Fellay, along with the Pope, is saying "enough's enough" about that kind of thing.
I hear an awful lot of frogs croaking on this thread...
I can understand some of the distrust. I thought that John Paul II had little solicitude for traditionalists. I always had the feeling that if you went to the indult with the diocese, you were only given scraps from the table. For the longest time they wouldn't even turn on the lights for you. But who can say that since 2005 it has been the same? It certainly hasn't. The Pope has made major moves in the way of saying, "I am genuine." Genuine in what way? Genuine that trads should now have a place at the table. And that says alot. Most trads ever wanted a place at the table from which to operate. Contrary to what some people display, I have always known all trads except the most very extreme to go to any traditional Mass which was said reverently, with good preaching, and didn't pull the table out to soon after the Mass (to kind of kill the thanksgiving). (This can even be said of SSPX devotees, even if it was just for vacations or what-not.) So if people are willing to receiving through the Church structures, then what is wrong with actually being within the Church's structures? And there's the bluff. "I've got this card I can always draw on if I need it." And that's the Society. We have this group we can counterbalance to the Church's structure. But what I am most interested in is the Pope basically saying that this group will not longer be allowed to exist outside Her structures. And so he is calling them out, and really testing the faith of many trads. By the way, I don't think literally that the Pope is in a room pointing at Fellay and laying down the gauntlet. What I mean is that he really wants the SSPX to be reconciled. He wants to completely wipe away the issue off the table that the SSPX is "outside the Church" or "in schism" or "not in full communion". So much so that this is a personal initiative of his, and Fellay says he is genuine. Now if anyone has been following this closely we can see that this is new. Previously the talks and what-not did not go well. There was no agreement, and Fellay said flat-out that Rome and the Society do not even speak the same language anymore. And then we see this new thing come up with the Pope himself wanting to even lay aside the present difficulties in differing viewpoints. The Pope has done alot to gain at least the trust that he is not bringing the SSPX to him in order to destroy her. Summorum Pontificum, Universae Ecclesiae, the lifting of the excommunications, the doctrinal discussions, the harder stance the Pope has had on dissidents and abuses, and this latest personal solicitude for the Society. I have a few items which caused me to step back a bit. One was praying in the Mosque with the Muslims. Another was Assisi III, even though I think that one really came to nothing. I wish he'd celebrate the traditional Mass as a personal sign of his commitment. I wish he'd have a different view about Fatima. And finally the Good Friday prayer. Looking on that, I can't see why I would distrust this Pope in the simple matter of him wanting the best for the Society. And how could such distrust be present unless we think that even Christ has abandoned His people. Maybe it well is Christ's will that the SSPX be in the Church's structures in this stage of restoration. (especially if we actually have faith that all these rosary crusades were not for naught.) I mean, all this effort and then when the Pope says okay, we pull back and say, "I really didn't mean it." Whose wishy-washy? But I say this with the added idea that if we love the Pope, if we are under the Pope, and the Pope makes a demand "motu proprio," then who are the leaders and bishops of the Society to resist given some basic safeguards. I see a great benefit in the idea that there would no longer be any groups outside the Church's structures, and if they are, they are truly outside the Church. And the Society begins to operate, as it once had, within the Church's structures. No more "separation, but really not separated" debate. And even with some many things unresolved. A prudent man knows that the Church will be restored gradually over generations. He who wish to pull the bandaid off quickly doesn't have power for a reason, because it would be so swift and strong a blow that so many would be scandalized. My priest, God love him, is like that. Day one he'd clean the situation up. Even though I admire his zeal, it is highly impractical and unrealistic, not to mention probably impossible in such a time line.

A bit long-winded, but I think the Pope raises an interesting debate which any average trad has had with himself. He reads these traditional books which have all this really strict stuff about the Pope, he resist the Pope though, and so he needs an answer. I actually think our Pope has a nice resolution to that question available for us. The other answer I have always found distasteful, and to be quite honest, completely contrary to why I came back to the Church and in that to tradition. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I think we live in exciting times.
(05-16-2012, 06:49 AM)ImpyTerwilliger Wrote:
(05-16-2012, 05:21 AM)City Smurf Wrote: Holy Mother Church, the Bride of Christ was just described as a rapist and a wife-beater... and people wonder why the Tank is viewed as a cesspool by many.


I've really had it with this forum.  I'll be perching offline, in reality.

Some people accuse Fisheaters of being far too liberal.  It is certainly the most liberal of the forums that can claim to be Trad.

Now you are leaving because some here are too hard-line?

There's no pleasing some people.

It's called a Forum because it is about discussing things.  That means people have different opinions.  (Tip:  Don't try Cathinfo, I am considered a liberal there and Vetus would probably have to have a yellow star of David as his avatar).

Are people angry and confused?  Sure.  Why wouldn't they be?  Are they looking for reasons, justifications and answers?  Sure.

Have any of those come from the Church in the last 40 years?  Not really.  Just a lot of mush.

I notice that pre-internet in 1987/88 the SSPX was pretty open about its reasons for doing the consecrations of 4 bishops and resisting the Pope.

Now they are going back, based on the Pope's request, the T&Cs are secret.  Some people naturally feel confused, let down betrayed, raped even by the whole experience.
(05-15-2012, 11:05 PM)DrBombay Wrote:
(05-15-2012, 10:59 PM)MRose Wrote: I
(05-15-2012, 10:46 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: A "tough" move?

I'd personally give him more credit if he made tough moves against heretics posing as Catholics, against ecumenism

I agree with what Vetus wrote here. Why is it that the Pope only wants to make "tough" moves or assert his supreme authority over Traditional groups, rather than all of the other garbage pretending to be Catholicism, over Bishops who do not have the Faith, so on and so forth.

Because he's the pope and he can do what he damn well pleases and doesn't need advice from pseudo-anonymous interwebbers named Vetus.

That's why.  :tiphat:

I know you have a persona to maintain, Bombay, but comments like this lower the quality of the discussion and the forum, in general.  Vetus has legitimate concerns that deserve more than insults in response.  Even if he did not, a basic level of respect and courtesy would make this a better place.
I find Docs comment mild next to the comparisons of the Catholic Church to wife beaters and rapists that several people have made.

Would you be equally shocked and scandalised by an Irish 40 year old man making that charge of the Church when he found out that Cardinals and Bishops knew he was being raped as a child but kept silent and moved the homosexual rapist from parish to parish?

I know that the invisible "church in a box" is not guilty of anything, but Fellay is signing a deal and putting himself in the hands of the same curia who stayed silent, inert and inneffective when children were being raped by priests and Bishops.

I personally have a lot of sympathy of the victims and understand why they want to be angry and make strong accusations.

The two situations are very similar and both involve wholesale injustices and lies and cover-ups carried out over decades.

Same men still running things there in the Vatican.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)