Pope calling for clarifications of Vatican II
#61
(05-26-2012, 11:10 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: Novus Ordo Catholics still consider traditional Catholic's schismatic to this day. We are disobedient to them.

We are only 'such' because many of them are modernists, liberals, and crypto-Protestants.  And the sad part is: Quite a few of the do not even know it. Many languish on year after year, none the wiser. 

Of course, true Roman Catholicism, that is to say, what is 'Traditional Roman Catholicism' is anathema and antithetical to Modernists and Protestants (and their immitators [e.g. Charismatics, Liberals, Liberation movement, Legionaires, etc.])
Reply
#62
(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.

I disagree. It is clear that Benedict is not interested in getting rid of the tumor at all, since he doesn't consider it be a tumor. He was one of the most progressive attendants at the council. He is busy trying to get traditional Catholics to accept the tumor.
Reply
#63
The vatican would rather have protestants on the clarification council, as they did during Vat. II, than have the Pius X society.
Reply
#64
(05-27-2012, 11:24 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(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.

I disagree. It is clear that Benedict is not interested in getting rid of the tumor at all, since he doesn't consider it be a tumor. He was one of the most progressive attendants at the council. He is busy trying to get traditional Catholics to accept the tumor.

Well Bishop Fellay has become convinced that Pope Benedict is sincere in wanting to get tradition into the Church.  So if Bishop Fellay is stupid and the Pope is evil and deceptive, I guess you are right.  It seems extremely unlikely to me.
Reply
#65
(05-24-2012, 04:53 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: I would certainly like it if the ridiculous nature of explaining all the reasons the sky is blue, and how it would be blue to a blind man too, if he weren't blind, was reduced to "the Church says the sky is blue... and here's why".
This is the sort of thing I hate about reading Vatican 2 documents:
"Considering the colorblind, who might, if indeed they are colorblind, and not only the type which blends blues into greens, according to the genetic predispositions allowed according to the will of God; and indeed the color wheel reduces a concept to language and perception of color, which is, as it is, merely a fraction of light, which is true Light, do make known the understanding that the blind, and colorblind, though unable to see blue, see truth in their own way".

Well, what about the guy who just says blue is dog and green is red, despite knowing damn well the sky is blue?

gimme a break, just say the dang sky is blue and the folks with canes and dogs need to get with the program while the "the sky is colored dog" folks get to enjoy the reality of relativism's dark side.

## But it isn't - it just appears blue to us :)  Besides, it appears blue only sometimes, and in some places. It's often streaked with pink, rose, grey, etc.  No dogma of sky-ey blueness can alter these facts; they have to be accomodated in the teaching of the Met Office, along with that dogma which already expresses a truth. Colour does not exist anyway.

"Well, what about the guy who just says blue is dog and green is red, despite knowing damn well the sky is blue?"

## The Met Office is not saying that, nor are its advisers. There is a difference between saying the sky is never any colour but blue, & saying that it is not blue only, but grey or black or red as well. This is a statement of a wholly different order from saying that Stilton cheese is a bird not unlike the swallow, except in size, or that the Grinch was pardoned for stealing Christmas; or that the favourite fairy dance is the Highland Fling, & not (as is erroneously thought) in some quarters, the waltz.
Reply
#66
Mr. Rugiens,

Vatican II was perfectly orthodox and Catholic, right? Only bad interpretations of it, misrepresentations, are bad, correct?
Reply
#67
(05-30-2012, 07:51 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Mr. Rugiens,

Vatican II was perfectly orthodox and Catholic, right? Only bad interpretations of it, misrepresentations, are bad, correct?

## Incorrect - AFAICS. It was littered with "time-bombs", deadly ambiguities which have been exploited since, & caused enormous damage. As for Dignitatis Humanae, that is a doctrinal mess. There is plenty of good stuff in it, but that does not redeem its faults. That it was accompanied with a lot of mindless euphoria, & thought of as a "super-Council", did not help :( What is particularly bad is that The CC now officially has a whole set of new "orientations" which can be traced to the Council documents, but not to the previous Magisterium. They are not merely new - that is not a fatal objection to them - but they are meant to replace the past Tradition. And that is not acceptable.

The dropping of supersessionism is an example of this: the Church of Christ, not the Jewish people today, is the inheritor of the Old Covenant, because the Old Covenant was fulfilled in Christ. To deny this, is to say the NT authors, who affirm this fulfilment time and again, were wrong. It relativises Christ.  The NT writers say He is the promised Messiah - supersessionism builds on that foundation. To deny supersessionism & to affirm the continuing validity of the Old Covenant is to  deny that He is the Messiah. 

This position of supersessionism must not be confused with anti-Judaism. I have a lot of respect for the Jews, but no respect for attempts to manipulate the NT so that it does not say what is not welcome to them. To deprive the Jews of missionaries to them, as the CC now does, in the name of respect for them, is very bad indeed, because the Good News is intended for the Jews first, and then for the Gentiles. They are being robbed. Judaism is worthless & nothing, if it is not for the sake of Christ - the whole point of the OT, was that He is its fulfilment. One does not expect the Jews to see this, but for Christian bishops not to is atrocious.

V2 has brought other evils on the Church. Such as the bastardisation of Catholicism that is "Hebrew Catholicism" - IOW, a hybrid of Catholicism & Judaism. And so it goes on :( 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)