Hardrock-Mass
#61
(07-17-2012, 10:03 PM)MRose Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 09:00 PM)JayneK Wrote: Of course it is important.  So is dealing with dissident theologians.  So is reviving catechesis.  So is taking a stand against secularism.  So is cleaning out abusive priests.  Etc.  

There are major problems in virtually every area of Church life.  He cannot address every problem at once.  He will pour out his life doing this and it will not be finished when he dies. It is easy to sit around our computers and complain, but the man in charge has an overwhelming task and responsibility.

I fail to see how the Holy Father really desires this. He just appointed as the Vice President of Ecclesia Dei, the organization supposedly in favor of trads in Rome, a "conservative" who quickly went on record saying that the SSPX needs to convert to Vatican II, and Ecclesia Dei is busy ignoring plenty of appeals from the faithul regarding the TLM in favor of putting novus ordo prefaces, etc., into the TLM. He helped create the problem; while he now has perhaps acknowledged some of the problem, he is far from rejecting its creation and continuance.

Did you read the whole interview that this claim is based on or did you read a "Pope can do no right" article about it? 
Reply
#62
(07-17-2012, 11:53 PM)John Lane Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 05:10 PM)JayneK Wrote: Removing a bishop is drastic and difficult.  In most situations, it is better to wait until he gets to retirement age. (The bad ones are out at the first opportunity; the good ones stay in longer.)  The new bishops appointed under Benedict have tended to be of much better quality.  The Pope does understand how important this is and spends an significant amount of time researching possible appointees.

You sound like an expert consultant in the management of the Church, who knows all about how difficult it is to remove bishops, what the best strategy is to deal with them, etc.  You have inside knowledge, based upon some extensive surveys or other to which nobody else has access, which show that the newer appointments "tend to be of much better quality" (without defining "better quality", which could mean anything from their ability with financial accounting to their skill at hiding sodomite clerics).  You also have inside knolwedge of the process Benedict personally engages in to research each of the men he appoints to ensure this "better quality" that you detect.

That's what you sound like.

But I don't believe it.  I think you make it up as you go along.

I have never claimed to have inside knowledge and I will go on record now saying that I do not.  I read and consider the same reports and analysis that are available to anyone.  I am posting the conclusions that I reach, just like anyone else here does.
Reply
#63
(07-18-2012, 12:12 AM)John Lane Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 09:00 PM)JayneK Wrote: Of course it is important.  So is dealing with dissident theologians.  So is reviving catechesis.  So is taking a stand against secularism.  So is cleaning out abusive priests.  Etc.  

Jayne, you can't deal with heretics by making them head of the CDF. 

Which is why the Pope did not make a heretic the head of the CDF. 
Reply
#64
(07-18-2012, 09:03 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(07-18-2012, 12:12 AM)John Lane Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 09:00 PM)JayneK Wrote: Of course it is important.  So is dealing with dissident theologians.  So is reviving catechesis.  So is taking a stand against secularism.  So is cleaning out abusive priests.  Etc.  

Jayne, you can't deal with heretics by making them head of the CDF. 

Which is why the Pope did not make a heretic the head of the CDF. 
Reply
#65
(07-18-2012, 09:03 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(07-18-2012, 12:12 AM)John Lane Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 09:00 PM)JayneK Wrote: Of course it is important.  So is dealing with dissident theologians.  So is reviving catechesis.  So is taking a stand against secularism.  So is cleaning out abusive priests.  Etc.  

Jayne, you can't deal with heretics by making them head of the CDF. 

Which is why the Pope did not make a heretic the head of the CDF. 

His writings could be easily censured as: smacking of heresy or error, ambiguous, and offensive to pious ears.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03532a.htm
Reply
#66
(07-18-2012, 09:17 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: His writings could be easily censured as: smacking of heresy or error, ambiguous, and offensive to pious ears.

Have you personally read his writings, i.e, more than isolated quotes?
Reply
#67
(07-18-2012, 09:03 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(07-18-2012, 12:12 AM)John Lane Wrote: Jayne, you can't deal with heretics by making them head of the CDF. 

Which is why the Pope did not make a heretic the head of the CDF. 

Liberation theology = heresy.  If you can disprove this equation using a traditional source, I'd be interested.  I consider it to be pretty firmly established.
Reply
#68
(07-18-2012, 09:36 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote:
(07-18-2012, 09:03 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(07-18-2012, 12:12 AM)John Lane Wrote: Jayne, you can't deal with heretics by making them head of the CDF. 

Which is why the Pope did not make a heretic the head of the CDF. 

Liberation theology = heresy.  If you can disprove this equation using a traditional source, I'd be interested.  I consider it to be pretty firmly established.
Why do you have to be so black and white?
How judgmental.  How un-ecumenical of you.
Reply
#69
(07-18-2012, 09:36 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote:
(07-18-2012, 09:03 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(07-18-2012, 12:12 AM)John Lane Wrote: Jayne, you can't deal with heretics by making them head of the CDF. 

Which is why the Pope did not make a heretic the head of the CDF. 

Liberation theology = heresy.  If you can disprove this equation using a traditional source, I'd be interested.  I consider it to be pretty firmly established.

Liberation theology covers a range of ideas.  Some of the ideas and some of the theologians are wrong, even heretical, others are not.  The term itself was not coined until the 1970s so obviously there are no traditional sources saying anything about it one way or the other.  If we were to break it down into specific ideas we could evaluate each of them in terms of traditional sources.  

At its best, liberation theology looks at our duty as Catholics to serve God through the poor. Orthopraxis is based on orthodoxy.  At its worst, the concern for the poor overshadows the love of God. Orthopraxis dominates orthodoxy.  There is no question that ++Muller has demonstrated concern for the poor.  I haven't seen anything that indicates he is involved in the unacceptable forms of liberation theology.
Reply
#70
(07-18-2012, 09:26 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(07-18-2012, 09:17 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: His writings could be easily censured as: smacking of heresy or error, ambiguous, and offensive to pious ears.

Have you personally read his writings, i.e, more than isolated quotes?

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?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)