Hardrock-Mass

[John Lane]

Yes, he made a case for it.  Do you want me to find the post? I should be able to fairly easily.

That would be useful.  Whatever he says, we can believe the very opposite.  That will save us having to work anything out.  :)

[SouthpawLink]

No, but I respect the opinions of orthodox priests who've criticized his work.  Besides, isolated quotes -- treating of Catholic doctrine -- shouldn't by their nature be ambiguous or offensive to pious ears.  How is it that isolated statements taken from Pope Gregory XVI, Pope Pius IX, et al. do not give scandal as easily, if even at all?

To be fair, there's a reason why St. Gregory the Great is the go-to Pope for anti-Catholic apologists and polemicists--you can make isolated quotes from him appear to oppose Catholic dogma quite easily. If he can be the Great, then I don't see how someone else can be condemned merely for isolated quotes.  You can also make isolated Magisterial quotes appear to contradict other isolated Magisterial quotes (like those referring to EENS and those referring to baptism of desire or those condemning Pelagianism and those condemning Jansenism and similar errors, and those discussing the relationship between the temporal and spiritual powers in the medieval period vs. those in the 19th and 20th centuries, etc.) and you can make isolated Scripture verses appear to contradict Magisterial texts, but also other Scripture texts.  That's why I don't think using isolated quotes is the best approach (it's also why when isolated quotes of authors are universally and definitively condemned in past Magisterial texts, one must be sure of the actual meaning and context of the original quote).

Good point (I'm aware that some Fathers could be misrepresented as being proto-Protestants).  Although, the nature of a work may determine how careful the writer must be in his selection of words and phrases.  I'm all for making the necessary distinctions, so long as they're made and not omitted.  That's why Bibles come with footnotes and Denzinger has a doctrinal index.  I'm also in agreement with you concerning condemned propositions.

[Stubborn]

Yes, he made a case for it.  Do you want me to find the post? I should be able to fairly easily.

That would be useful.  Whatever he says, we can believe the very opposite.  That will save us having to work anything out.  :)

That's about the size of it.

Anyone ever find out where Fr. Z stands? - is he Trad, NO or ?.

[Jesusbrea]

So if we rank all the problems facing the Church today, where would we put a priest doing dumb stuff with liturgy? 

Does it ever occur to anyone here that the Pope has to deal with big picture strategy and cannot pull out his big guns for every individual priest abusing the liturgy?  He has to choose his battles and think about the long term. And I can't think of anyone here who is in a position to judge what it is like to handle responsibility on that scale.

Yep, let's go after those SSPX integrists instead, those are the real big fishes.

[JayneK]

So if we rank all the problems facing the Church today, where would we put a priest doing dumb stuff with liturgy? 

Does it ever occur to anyone here that the Pope has to deal with big picture strategy and cannot pull out his big guns for every individual priest abusing the liturgy?  He has to choose his battles and think about the long term. And I can't think of anyone here who is in a position to judge what it is like to handle responsibility on that scale.

Yep, let's go after those SSPX integrists instead, those are the real big fishes.

The Pope seems to have treated regularization of the SSPX as one of the top priorities of his papacy.  I see no reason to speak as if he has been persecuting them.

[Petertherock]

If the Pope really wanted to regularize the SSPX he could do so with one simple declaration. Nothing is stopping him. In a nutshell...if the SSPX are wrong...then the Catholic Church before the 1960s was wrong. If the SSPX and the pre VII Church is right...then Rome must act and become Catholic again.

[JuniorCouncilor]

I got this idea from Fr. Z (who, unlike me, is a Vatican insider.)

OK.  Did he have any justification for it, or was it just crede mihi, Romae habito?

As I've never read anything of his, I have little reason to believe or disbelieve him.

Yes, he made a case for it.  Do you want me to find the post? I should be able to fairly easily.

I'd be interested to read it-- I simply can't imagine what would make one think the appointment of Muller is the harbinger of death for the dissidents.  To me, such a statement is a riddle wrapped in an enigma hidden in a mystery.

Of course, some mysteries are simply insoluble.

[JoniCath]

:

So if we rank all the problems facing the Church today, where would we put a priest doing dumb stuff with liturgy? 

Does it ever occur to anyone here that the Pope has to deal with big picture strategy and cannot pull out his big guns for every individual priest abusing the liturgy?  He has to choose his battles and think about the long term. And I can't think of anyone here who is in a position to judge what it is like to handle responsibility on that scale.

:clap :clap :clap

[GottmitunsAlex]

If the Pope really wanted to regularize the SSPX he could do so with one simple declaration. Nothing is stopping him. In a nutshell...if the SSPX are wrong...then the Catholic Church before the 1960s was wrong. If the SSPX and the pre VII Church is right...then Rome must act and become Catholic again.

:clap :clap :clap

[TS Aquinas]

If the Pope really wanted to regularize the SSPX he could do so with one simple declaration. Nothing is stopping him. In a nutshell...if the SSPX are wrong...then the Catholic Church before the 1960s was wrong. If the SSPX and the pre VII Church is right...then Rome must act and become Catholic again.

This.

People have forgotten what the battle is all about, a little reminder now and then puts the SSPX in the right.