Pope calling for clarifications of Vatican II
#51
Quote:Pope Benedict uses a long term strategy.  The first step to having tradition in its rightful place is to get it recognized as Catholic.  This puts it into the position to obliterate the illegitimate reforms.

This doesn't make sense. Who would need to do the recognizing? The curia? The hierarchy? The majority of laity? The way this is phrased does not make sense.
Reply
#52
(05-26-2012, 11:28 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(05-26-2012, 11:10 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(05-26-2012, 03:45 PM)JayneK Wrote: Traditional Catholics were treated shamefully in the past, but you were writing as if this were still happening today. The attitude toward traditional Catholics has changed dramatically in the last 5 years.  We are seeing liberals and heretics facing consequences (although not as much as needed).  We are seeing traditional Catholicism acknowledged.  Things are different in recent years than they were20 or 30 or 40 years ago and it is misleading to speak as if the last 50 years were all the same.

Novus Ordo Catholics still consider traditional Catholic's schismatic to this day. We are disobedient to them.

I don't see traditional Catholicism acknowledged. I see it being included and placed side by side the reforms of the revolution. That is not traditional Catholicism.

Some people who call themselves traditional Catholics are schismatic.  However those of us traditional Catholics who are not schismatic are not called schismatic in any official statements.  There are probably some ignorant people who think we are, but this does not represent Vatican policy.

Pope Benedict uses a long term strategy.  The first step to having tradition in its rightful place is to get it recognized as Catholic.  This puts it into the position to obliterate the illegitimate reforms.

I'm sorry but I can't agree. The first step is to get rid of what is attacking it and that which replaced it: the reforms. Only after those are gone can Catholicism be restored. Until then, it's just going to appear to be yet another pretty little knick knack on the Vatican's shelf.
Reply
#53
(05-26-2012, 11:42 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(05-26-2012, 11:28 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(05-26-2012, 11:10 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(05-26-2012, 03:45 PM)JayneK Wrote: Traditional Catholics were treated shamefully in the past, but you were writing as if this were still happening today. The attitude toward traditional Catholics has changed dramatically in the last 5 years.  We are seeing liberals and heretics facing consequences (although not as much as needed).  We are seeing traditional Catholicism acknowledged.  Things are different in recent years than they were20 or 30 or 40 years ago and it is misleading to speak as if the last 50 years were all the same.

Novus Ordo Catholics still consider traditional Catholic's schismatic to this day. We are disobedient to them.

I don't see traditional Catholicism acknowledged. I see it being included and placed side by side the reforms of the revolution. That is not traditional Catholicism.

Some people who call themselves traditional Catholics are schismatic.  However those of us traditional Catholics who are not schismatic are not called schismatic in any official statements.  There are probably some ignorant people who think we are, but this does not represent Vatican policy.

Pope Benedict uses a long term strategy.  The first step to having tradition in its rightful place is to get it recognized as Catholic.  This puts it into the position to obliterate the illegitimate reforms.

I'm sorry but I can't agree. The first step is to get rid of what is attacking it and that which replaced it: the reforms. Only after those are gone can Catholicism be restored. Until then, it's just going to appear to be yet another pretty little knick knack on the Vatican's shelf.

Fine.  You don't like the way the Pope is doing things.  But that is no reason to deny that there have been dramatic changes in regards to traditional Catholicism over the last few years.
Reply
#54
(05-26-2012, 11:44 PM)JayneK Wrote: Fine.  You don't like the way the Pope is doing things.  But that is no reason to deny that there have been dramatic changes in regards to traditional Catholicism over the last few years.

I'm just saying that if you want to save the brain you have to kill the tumor. Trying to convince the tumor to be nice to the brain isn't going to work.

We just have different views about the seriousness of the reforms.
Reply
#55
(05-26-2012, 11:51 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(05-26-2012, 11:44 PM)JayneK Wrote: Fine.  You don't like the way the Pope is doing things.  But that is no reason to deny that there have been dramatic changes in regards to traditional Catholicism over the last few years.

I'm just saying that if you want to save the brain you have to kill the tumor. Trying to convince the tumor to be nice to the brain isn't going to work.

We just have different views about the seriousness of the reforms.

That about sums up the matter .  .  .
Reply
#56
(05-26-2012, 11:51 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(05-26-2012, 11:44 PM)JayneK Wrote: Fine.  You don't like the way the Pope is doing things.  But that is no reason to deny that there have been dramatic changes in regards to traditional Catholicism over the last few years.

I'm just saying that if you want to save the brain you have to kill the tumor. Trying to convince the tumor to be nice to the brain isn't going to work.

We just have different views about the seriousness of the reforms.

This is not a disagreement about the seriousness of the tumour but whether to treat it with chemo-therapy or with surgery.  The pope's approach is like chemo-therapy.  He injects tradition into the Church to kill the tumour over time.  You want surgery - to cut it out all at once.  It is not the seriousness of the tumour that determines which treatment to use.
Reply
#57
(05-27-2012, 07:04 AM)JayneK Wrote:
(05-26-2012, 11:51 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(05-26-2012, 11:44 PM)JayneK Wrote: Fine.  You don't like the way the Pope is doing things.  But that is no reason to deny that there have been dramatic changes in regards to traditional Catholicism over the last few years.

I'm just saying that if you want to save the brain you have to kill the tumor. Trying to convince the tumor to be nice to the brain isn't going to work.

We just have different views about the seriousness of the reforms.

This is not a disagreement about the seriousness of the tumour but whether to treat it with chemo-therapy or with surgery.  The pope's approach is like chemo-therapy.  He injects tradition into the Church to kill the tumour over time.  You want surgery - to cut it out all at once.  It is not the seriousness of the tumour that determines which treatment to use.

It just doesn't add up, Jayne, not at all.  I'd really like to agree with you but it just doesn't make any sense.  You claim that the Pope is favoring Tradition - and out of one side of his mouth he seems to be.  Then out of the other side of his mouth he is trying to canonize perhaps the worst pope in Church history, planning scandalous events like Assisi III, declaring Martin Luther a pseudo-saint and rubbing elbows with the Talmudists (and every other false religion under the sun while never trying to convert).  I believe INPEFESS is 100% correct.  The conciliar Church is trying to make "Traditional Catholicism" just another facet of the new religion.  By doing this they allow the neo-con "trads" under their banner and then began to attack true trads with even more ferocity than before.  I believe their plan is just this:  to re-create "traditional Catholicism" under conciliar terms and totally eradicate true traditional Catholics with more slander of "schismatic" and "rebel."  After this is said and done, then they can move forward with their other devious plans.
Reply
#58
(05-27-2012, 08:41 AM)Nic Wrote: It just doesn't add up, Jayne, not at all.  I'd really like to agree with you but it just doesn't make any sense.  You claim that the Pope is favoring Tradition - and out of one side of his mouth he seems to be.  Then out of the other side of his mouth he is trying to canonize perhaps the worst pope in Church history, planning scandalous events like Assisi III, declaring Martin Luther a pseudo-saint and rubbing elbows with the Talmudists (and every other false religion under the sun while never trying to convert).  I believe INPEFESS is 100% correct.  The conciliar Church is trying to make "Traditional Catholicism" just another facet of the new religion.  By doing this they allow the neo-con "trads" under their banner and then began to attack true trads with even more ferocity than before.  I believe their plan is just this:  to re-create "traditional Catholicism" under conciliar terms and totally eradicate true traditional Catholics with more slander of "schismatic" and "rebel."  After this is said and done, then they can move forward with their other devious plans.
I have thought on this as well -- What alternatives are left?

We 've crossed the rubicon, the liturgy is a joke, enculturation in a lot of places have evolved into an amalgamation of christian and pagan practises....even the Orthodox are making fun of us regarding the state of things.

I'm beginning to think we are in the last days.
Reply
#59
(05-26-2012, 11:30 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
Quote:Pope Benedict uses a long term strategy.  The first step to having tradition in its rightful place is to get it recognized as Catholic.  This puts it into the position to obliterate the illegitimate reforms.

This doesn't make sense. Who would need to do the recognizing? The curia? The hierarchy? The majority of laity? The way this is phrased does not make sense.

I thought the problem might be that I was writing late at night when I was tired, but here it is the next day and I still can't think of a clearer way to say it.  :crazy:
Reply
#60
(05-27-2012, 08:41 AM)Nic Wrote: It just doesn't add up, Jayne, not at all.  I'd really like to agree with you but it just doesn't make any sense.  You claim that the Pope is favoring Tradition - and out of one side of his mouth he seems to be.  Then out of the other side of his mouth he is trying to canonize perhaps the worst pope in Church history, planning scandalous events like Assisi III, declaring Martin Luther a pseudo-saint and rubbing elbows with the Talmudists (and every other false religion under the sun while never trying to convert).  I believe INPEFESS is 100% correct.  The conciliar Church is trying to make "Traditional Catholicism" just another facet of the new religion.  By doing this they allow the neo-con "trads" under their banner and then began to attack true trads with even more ferocity than before.  I believe their plan is just this:  to re-create "traditional Catholicism" under conciliar terms and totally eradicate true traditional Catholics with more slander of "schismatic" and "rebel."  After this is said and done, then they can move forward with their other devious plans.

Most of these things that Pope Benedict has done make sense to me.  While I agree that in many ways John Paul had serious flaws as a pope, he apparently had great personal piety.  I can imagine this influences people who knew him personally as Benedict did.  Assisi 3 was intended as damage control for the truly problematic earlier Assisi gatherings.  Reaching out to false religions makes sense in the face of rising secularism which is our common foe.  I'm not claiming that these were necessarily the best ways to do things, but I think his motives for doing them are compatible with a sincere desire to foster tradition.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)