Leadership Conference of Women Religious confronted a young priest...
#71
God bless this priest. That woman made me so angry, but her arguments were so ridiculous, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.
Reply
#72
Here's a video response by Fr. Ted. IDK if anyone has posted this yet, so sorry if I'm double posting.

[video=youtube]J3PRRTIE-L8[/video]
Reply
#73
Father Ted Martin fails in my estimation to recognize the fact that there are novelties taught by Vatican II namely, religious liberty, collegiality, and ecumenism. From the top down we have witnessed the destruction of the the Church as she was prior to Vatican II. Even if one would wish to concede that all the documents of Vatican II can be interpreted in a "Catholic sense" one would have to concede also that they could be interpreted in an unorthodox manner. In my estimation it is legitimate to question and resist such documents for just this reason. The Church is not heterodox, the Church is not ambiguous as constituted by her founder Jesus Christ.

Looking at the devastation in the Vineyard I ask, just  how many post Vatican II popes, bishops, and priests have interpreted the Council documents in an orthodox manner? How many can say that those documents are not a deviation from the pre-Vatican II Magisterium of the Catholic Church and pass the red face test? We wouldn't be in the mess we are in today if orthodoxy reigned. No, instead we have grave theological errors and even heresy spoon-fed to what passes for a Catholic. Or on the other hand, it's wink, wink when it comes to topics of birth control, women priests, etc...

Sadly, until Father Martin sees it as necessary that the documents of Vatican II must be jettisoned, he will be of no more use to loyal Catholics than any other N.O. clergyman (starting from the top down).
Reply
#74
Though Franke is on the fringe, she is not that far from most in the church (80% of nuns that belong to LCRW, most Jesuits, etc.).  This exchange is yet another example of the urgent need to destroy the ambiguity of VII and print a syllabus of errors.
Reply
#75
(07-02-2012, 09:30 AM)OldMan Wrote: Father Ted Martin fails in my estimation to recognize the fact that there are novelties taught by Vatican II namely, religious liberty, collegiality, and ecumenism. From the top down we have witnessed the destruction of the the Church as she was prior to Vatican II. Even if one would wish to concede that all the documents of Vatican II can be interpreted in a "Catholic sense" one would have to concede also that they could be interpreted in an unorthodox manner. In my estimation it is legitimate to question and resist such documents for just this reason. The Church is not heterodox, the Church is not ambiguous as constituted by her founder Jesus Christ.

Looking at the devastation in the Vineyard I ask, just  how many post Vatican II popes, bishops, and priests have interpreted the Council documents in an orthodox manner? How many can say that those documents are not a deviation from the pre-Vatican II Magisterium of the Catholic Church and pass the red face test? We wouldn't be in the mess we are in today if orthodoxy reigned. No, instead we have grave theological errors and even heresy spoon-fed to what passes for a Catholic. Or on the other hand, it's wink, wink when it comes to topics of birth control, women priests, etc...

Sadly, until Father Martin sees it as necessary that the documents of Vatican II must be jettisoned, he will be of no more use to loyal Catholics than any other N.O. clergyman (starting from the top down).

Mostly agreed, OldMan... although I wonder what a few anonymous packages of Trad literature might do for him...!  He'd certainly be an asset to Trad-dom if somebody can reach out to him and show him how exactly V2 erred.
Reply
#76
(07-02-2012, 12:36 PM)tmw89 Wrote:
(07-02-2012, 09:30 AM)OldMan Wrote: Father Ted Martin fails in my estimation to recognize the fact that there are novelties taught by Vatican II namely, religious liberty, collegiality, and ecumenism. From the top down we have witnessed the destruction of the the Church as she was prior to Vatican II. Even if one would wish to concede that all the documents of Vatican II can be interpreted in a "Catholic sense" one would have to concede also that they could be interpreted in an unorthodox manner. In my estimation it is legitimate to question and resist such documents for just this reason. The Church is not heterodox, the Church is not ambiguous as constituted by her founder Jesus Christ.

Looking at the devastation in the Vineyard I ask, just  how many post Vatican II popes, bishops, and priests have interpreted the Council documents in an orthodox manner? How many can say that those documents are not a deviation from the pre-Vatican II Magisterium of the Catholic Church and pass the red face test? We wouldn't be in the mess we are in today if orthodoxy reigned. No, instead we have grave theological errors and even heresy spoon-fed to what passes for a Catholic. Or on the other hand, it's wink, wink when it comes to topics of birth control, women priests, etc...

Sadly, until Father Martin sees it as necessary that the documents of Vatican II must be jettisoned, he will be of no more use to loyal Catholics than any other N.O. clergyman (starting from the top down).

Mostly agreed, OldMan... although I wonder what a few anonymous packages of Trad literature might do for him...!  He'd certainly be an asset to Trad-dom if somebody can reach out to him and show him how exactly V2 erred.

To be sure Father Martin is an intelligent person, and I believe he is sincere. I would be surprised if he doesn't already read "trad literature" from time to time. Young people tend to be idealistic and he probably has the notion in his head that he (as do other like minded clergy) can rescue the Church from her present situation by interpreting V-II in light of tradition. This notion in my estimation is doomed to failure.

I guess a few more prayers for his type are in order... nothing is impossible with God!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)