Hardrock-Mass
#31
(07-17-2012, 07:39 PM)JayneK Wrote: I think that sometimes he needs to leave a less than ideal bishop in place because he has not found anyone better to replace him with yet.  We had over 25 years of JPII and the associated trend of bad bishops, bad seminaries and bad priests.  Finding good bishops has got to be challenging.

St. Ambrose was baptized, confirmed, ordained a deacon, a priest, and then a bishop all on the same day. I think the Holy Father, if he had the purest intentions, could pull a relatively same maneuver with pious men wherever they are, from religious orders to simple deacons.
Reply
#32
(07-17-2012, 07:16 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 07:02 PM)Stubborn Wrote: I'm surprised no one has mentioned anything about going to this NO to make their Sunday Obligation, certainly this qualifies for that no?

I wouldn't go, even if it were my only option for Mass.

Why? It's valid isn't it?
Reply
#33
(07-17-2012, 05:00 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 04:52 PM)FaithByProxy Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 04:47 PM)JayneK Wrote: 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.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but pretty much everything you just posted seems to have come totally out of left field. Who here is bashing the Pope? Is any sort of critique of idiotic modernist shenanigans an attack on the Pope himself?




It was a pre-emptive strike?  :)  Seriously, this is where they were going with the "he's in communion with Rome" stuff.  The implication is that the Pope should be hunting down every liturgical abuse and excommunicating the perpetrators.

He doesn't have to hunt very far. All he needs do is put his papal slippers on and go and hang with the "Gay friendly" Irish college in Rome.Failing that he can attend any N.O. abomination of desolation and see abuse left right n center on a weekly basis. Be like shooting fish in a barrel for his Holiness.
Reply
#34
(07-17-2012, 04:47 PM)JayneK Wrote: 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.

That makes sense until you look at history. when there were heretics the Pope called on the Bishops to lay down the law. Take the Cathars for an example. Pope Innocent III( I think) started the Inquisition to deal with them. We all know that most diocese are rotten. Why won't The Pope do something? Thats what I want to know. I guess as long as the money comes in he's cool with whatever. A little latin Mass here a rock Mass here it's all good we're just one happy tent of relativism.
Reply
#35
(07-17-2012, 07:39 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 07:16 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 07:02 PM)Stubborn Wrote: I'm surprised no one has mentioned anything about going to this NO to make their Sunday Obligation, certainly this qualifies for that no?

I wouldn't go, even if it were my only option for Mass.

Suppose this priest was elected the next pope, you wouldn't go to his NO then to make your Sunday Obligation?

He would not be elected pope.
Reply
#36
(07-17-2012, 08:41 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 07:39 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 07:16 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 07:02 PM)Stubborn Wrote: I'm surprised no one has mentioned anything about going to this NO to make their Sunday Obligation, certainly this qualifies for that no?

I wouldn't go, even if it were my only option for Mass.

Suppose this priest was elected the next pope, you wouldn't go to his NO then to make your Sunday Obligation?

He would not be elected pope.
Alexander VI was elected pope.

Reply
#37
(07-17-2012, 08:17 PM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 04:47 PM)JayneK Wrote: 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.

That makes sense until you look at history. when there were heretics the Pope called on the Bishops to lay down the law. Take the Cathars for an example. Pope Innocent III( I think) started the Inquisition to deal with them. We all know that most diocese are rotten. Why won't The Pope do something? Thats what I want to know. I guess as long as the money comes in he's cool with whatever. A little latin Mass here a rock Mass here it's all good we're just one happy tent of relativism.

He is doing something.  He is a long-term thinker who is after lasting results rather than quick results.  In 20 years it will be clearer just how much he accomplished.

You can't compare the Latin Mass which has his full approval with a Mass that is violating the rubrics.
Reply
#38
(07-17-2012, 07:47 PM)TS Aquinas Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 07:39 PM)JayneK Wrote: I think that sometimes he needs to leave a less than ideal bishop in place because he has not found anyone better to replace him with yet.  We had over 25 years of JPII and the associated trend of bad bishops, bad seminaries and bad priests.  Finding good bishops has got to be challenging.

St. Ambrose was baptized, confirmed, ordained a deacon, a priest, and then a bishop all on the same day. I think the Holy Father, if he had the purest intentions, could pull a relatively same maneuver with pious men wherever they are, from religious orders to simple deacons.

How does he find these pious men?
Reply
#39
(07-17-2012, 07:54 PM)Thomas58 Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 07:16 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 07:02 PM)Stubborn Wrote: I'm surprised no one has mentioned anything about going to this NO to make their Sunday Obligation, certainly this qualifies for that no?

I wouldn't go, even if it were my only option for Mass.

Why? It's valid isn't it?

I have doubts about its validity.
Reply
#40
(07-17-2012, 08:48 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 07:47 PM)TS Aquinas Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 07:39 PM)JayneK Wrote: I think that sometimes he needs to leave a less than ideal bishop in place because he has not found anyone better to replace him with yet.  We had over 25 years of JPII and the associated trend of bad bishops, bad seminaries and bad priests.  Finding good bishops has got to be challenging.

St. Ambrose was baptized, confirmed, ordained a deacon, a priest, and then a bishop all on the same day. I think the Holy Father, if he had the purest intentions, could pull a relatively same maneuver with pious men wherever they are, from religious orders to simple deacons.

How does he find these pious men?
Evidently not in the NO seminary.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)