Pope Calling Our Bluff?
#51
(05-16-2012, 11:04 AM)Adam Wayne Wrote: Guardian you are right. Doc's post was nothing in comparison. In fact, it was quite accurate.

It was not accurate.  Bombay said, "Because he's the pope and he can do what he damn well pleases, " which is not an accurate statement of papal power or authority.  A pope has no right to teach heresy or commit personal sins, for example.  A person who believes the pope is in error is not supposed to say, "Well the pope can do no wrong, so I just won't think about it anymore"  That is intellectual dishonesty, to a point of intellectual suicide, and that is not what we are called to.  We are supposed to love God with all our minds.  That means we give God the best we are capable of intellectually.  An intelligent and educated person has a responsibility to think about these matters.

I may sometimes disagree with the conclusions that Vetus comes to, but he is struggling with important questions that ought to be engaged.  It is wrong to dismiss and belittle his struggles.  Besides, Vetus consistently behaves as a scholar and gentleman and that alone deserves our respect.
Reply
#52
Now that I am seeing things clearly, after warming up a bit I can answer in a much more cogent manner.

Yes the Pope is calling the Society's BLUFF.

In hindsight you stated it all in your headline. Bluffs are easy to call because by nature they are inauthentic and at best they are tools of negotiation.

Your comment about JPII and the indult was without merit. Was it really JPII's fault that they would not turn on the lights in the Churches. What was he supposed to do? Go to the parish and say, you guys have to stop playing with the fuse box? The point was he allowed the indult. And it is quite possible that he laid the groundwork for Benedict to bring things to a more mature bloom. Things don't happen in the Church overnight or in a vacuum. JPII tamed them, now Benedict can call their bluff.

Let's see what happens. And yes we are in exciting times. But anyone who is not blind will notice that all times are exciting.

But then again, I may be a dork as I am still pretty fascinated with the telephone and the fact that I am so womderfully made.
Reply
#53
(05-16-2012, 09:47 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(05-16-2012, 04:26 AM)ggreg Wrote: 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.

Ok, what are you people saying?  If things are really that bad, if what is really going on is proof that the Catholic Church today is not the same Church as the Catholic Church of yesteryear, then you need to be looking at Eastern Orthodoxy.  It is the only possible other option.  Catholicism is NOT in the SSPX if it is not in the Vatican.  If Rome is not Catholic, Constantinople and Moscow is the ONLY option.

Moscow and Constantinople do not even get marriage right.  They are not an option. 
Reply
#54
(05-16-2012, 11:51 AM)nmoerbeek Wrote:
(05-16-2012, 09:47 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(05-16-2012, 04:26 AM)ggreg Wrote: 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.

Ok, what are you people saying?  If things are really that bad, if what is really going on is proof that the Catholic Church today is not the same Church as the Catholic Church of yesteryear, then you need to be looking at Eastern Orthodoxy.  It is the only possible other option.  Catholicism is NOT in the SSPX if it is not in the Vatican.  If Rome is not Catholic, Constantinople and Moscow is the ONLY option.

Moscow and Constantinople do not even get marriage right.  They are not an option. 

Gotta love Melkite for trying, though... with all his Eastern solutions  :P
Reply
#55
(05-16-2012, 09:47 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(05-16-2012, 04:26 AM)ggreg Wrote: 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.

Ok, what are you people saying?  If things are really that bad, if what is really going on is proof that the Catholic Church today is not the same Church as the Catholic Church of yesteryear, then you need to be looking at Eastern Orthodoxy.  It is the only possible other option.  Catholicism is NOT in the SSPX if it is not in the Vatican.  If Rome is not Catholic, Constantinople and Moscow is the ONLY option.

I'm giving it serious consideration.  However the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Countries are in the most part corrupt and poor does not sell it to me very well.

I'd expect a true religion to raise man's standard of living to the point where he could lead a decent life when compared to the waring apostates and the divorcing and shagging pagans.  Not as rich as the Jews, but not as poor and certainly not as corrupt as the Muslims.

This is because over the long term the economies and tax systems of the cultures with the true religion SHOULD tend towards justice and freedom and because men left in that state will trade and make their economies work at least to the point that people are fed and happy and can raise children on land they can afford.
Reply
#56
As long as the topic has shifted to Eastern options, perhaps Melkite or another Fishie of the orient would care to mention the creme de la creme - the Russian Old Believers??
Reply
#57
Wow, I must've gone to bed too early and missed this humdinger. If you look closely this is a distillation of the very crisis. Confusion abounds and I'm right there with all of you. David leaps to mind. In te speravi, Domine, non confundar in aeternum.  This upsets me deeply. My Genovese aristocrat, Giacomo della Chiesa where are you ?

tim
Reply
#58
(05-16-2012, 12:19 PM)tmw89 Wrote: As long as the topic has shifted to Eastern options, perhaps Melkite or another Fishie of the orient would care to mention the creme de la creme - the Russian Old Believers??

Many already have the clothes for it.

http://blog.renaldi.com/2008/12/irina-an...-2008.html
Reply
#59
One of my favourite paintings.

[Image: surikov_boyarina.JPG]


Surikov, Vasily Ivanovich
Boyarina Morozova

1887
oil on canvas
304 x 587,5

Feodosia Prokopievna Morozova (?–1675), was a supporter of the spiritual leader of the old faith, archpriest Avvakum. Circa 1670 she was secretly tonsured as a nun; in 1671 she was arrested and in 1673 she was sent to the Pafnutief-Borovsky convent where she was starved to death in an earthen prison. The painting is devoted to the Church Schism of the 17th century. The Schism arose as a result of reforms by Patriarch Nikon to unify the rites and establish uniformity in the church service. The artist has depicted an episode when Boyarina Morozova is taken around Moscow to her place of confinement. In the centre is Morozova herself, her hand thrown up, blessing the crowd in the two-fingered manner of the Old Believers. The black spot of her clothing sounds the tragic dominant note of the painting. The crowd has divided. To the left, they are mocking the boyarina; to the right, they sympathize with her. Alongside Morozova is her sister Evdokia Urusova, who shared the fate of the Schismatics. In the distance we see a wanderer whose face bears portrait features of the artist. The figure of the wanderer has been drawn under an icon of Our Lady Glykophilousa (Umilenie). It was said of Surikov that in the painting he recreated “genuine history, as if he had been a witness to the events.”
Reply
#60
(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.

Oh come on. I do not consider the Mystical Body to be a rapist, wife-beater, or dead beat. From what has happened the last 40+ years, as well as the effects this has had on countless souls souls, I am worried. "Traditionalism," or adhering to the Faith as it was practiced before the council doctrinally, liturgically, and spiritually is not just one option among many. When we say "oh, so and so is a liberal" or "not a friend to Tradition," what do we mean? It's not that pertinacious, conscious non-trads, who embraced and went along with the changes, are just choosing another legitimate option; they are not. Most non-trads do not know that a problem or crisis exists, and someone has to show them or they are shocked by some appalling action and figure it out for themselves.

I am damn angry that I have been deprived of the spiritual patrimony and bliss of a relatively short time ago. I'm mad that many, especially my generation have had all of this nonsense foisted upon us.

When I give my strong opinions, it is not because I am like Luther or Calvin or some other egregious heretic who wants to see Holy Mother Church destroyed. Contrariwise, anyone who knows me, especially in real life, knows how much I love the Church, and how I would do anything out of love for Christ and His Church. Friends and family, even those very close to me, have mocked me because of this, said I take things "too seriously," that "all I care about is Church," or that I should "just go to some church or monastery and live there, because that's all you care about."

Would people have been angry at Petrarch when, distressed over the Avignon papacy, he said:
Quote:...Now I am living in France, in the Babylon of the West. The sun in its travels sees nothing more hideous than this place on the shores of the wild Rhone, which suggests the hellish streams of Cocytus and Acheron. Here reign the successors of the poor fishermen of Galilee; they have strangely forgotten their origin. I am astounded, as I recall their predecessors, to see these men loaded with gold and clad in purple, boasting of the spoils of princes and nations; to see luxurious palaces and heights crowned with fortifications, instead of a boat turned downward for shelter.

We no longer find the simple nets which were once used to gain a frugal sustenance from the lake of Galilee, and with which, having labored all night an caught nothing, they took, at daybreak, a multitude of fishes, in the name of Jesus. One is stupefied nowadays to hear the lying tongues, and to see worthless parchments turned by a leaden seal into nets which are used, in Christ's name, but by the arts of Belial, to catch hordes of unwary Christians. These fish, too, are dressed and laid on the burning coals of anxiety before they fill the insatiable maw of their captors.

Instead of holy solitude we find a criminal host and crowds of the most infamous satellites; instead of soberness, licentious banquets; instead of pious pilgrimages, preternatural and foul sloth; instead of the bare feet of the apostles, the snowy coursers of brigands fly past us, the horses decked in gold and fed on gold, soon to be shod with gold, if the Lord does not check this slavish luxury. In short, we seem to be among the kings of the Persians or Parthians, before whom we must fall down and worship, and who cannot be approached except presents be offered. O ye unkempt and emaciated old men, is it for this you labored? Is it for this that you have sown the field of the Lord and watered it with your holy blood? But let us leave the subject.

I have been so depressed and overcome that the heaviness of my soul has passed into bodily affliction, so that I am really ill and can only give voice to sighs and groans.

What about Savonarola when he said this?
Letter to the Emperor, Fra. Girolamo Savonarola Wrote:The Lord, moved to anger by this intolerable corruption, has, for some time past, allowed the Church to be without a pastor. For I bear witness in the name of God that this Alexander VI is in no way Pope and cannot be. For quite apart from the execrable crime of simony, by which he got possession of the [papal] tiara through a sacrilegious bargaining, and by which every day he puts up to auction and knocks down to the highest bidder ecclesiastical benefices, and quite apart from his other vices - well-known to all - which I will pass over in silence, this I declare in the first place and affirm it with all certitude, that the man is not a Christian, he does not even believe any longer that there is a God; he goes beyond the final limits of infidelity and impiety

The reason I made the analogy is because that is how I see the situation to have been. Everything wrong and evil was allowed to run rampant and unchecked, yet those who loved the Church were mocked and pastorally forgotten. Look at all of the nonsense that goes on in modern day seminaries. Look at how churches were wrecked. Look at how the true teachings of the Church were set aside for heresies and errors.

The proof is all around us. How many typical Catholic laity, even clerics, are plagued by subjectivism? How many truly and firmly believe that the Church is the only true religion, and not just "might" be true, or is "true for us." As ggreg said, universalism, subjectivism, and relativism are all around us. How many Catholics, otherwise decent people in the modern sense of the world, would say that the goal of life is "peace, good, and brotherhood," and doing "whatever makes one happy?"

I have grave fears and doubts. I fear that many of the reformed rites, since 1968, may be sacramentally dubious. I fear that many high authorities in the Church are heretics, and adhere to false Hegelian or Kantian philosophies.

"Traditional" Catholicism is true Catholicism, as opposed to the counterfeit one which has been posing as Catholicism in only a too obvious way. How will we be treated if trads accept a deal? As a side altar in a big tent Cathedral? As a kiosk in a shopping Mall. I have grave fears that our Faith, liturgy, disciplines, etc. will only be seen as another option, just as equal with carismaticos, conservative NO, Life Teen etc.

Observe the following liturgies of Count Christoph Cardinal von Schönborn, huge in "conservative" circles, possible papabile, close with Benedict XVI, and collaborator of the 1992 concilliar Catechism. Just four years ago, he said this liturgy:



Yet, he can also do something like this, with all the smells and bells:




I am concerned that many Catholics of good will think that this is only about liturgy and smells & bells, that there aren't serious doctrinal issues, and so on. Schillebeeckx, Rahner, Congar, and Küng all said the old liturgy. That did not make things okay.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)