Holy Father: If You Don't Agree, Then Just Get Out
#21
(08-30-2012, 11:49 AM)ggreg Wrote: It's strange because when I was a teenager some 30 years ago and reading and understanding the Traditionalist arguments in my mind, this was well understood, the arguments were well formulated and all Trads I knew, agreed with them.  You could go to any Traditionalist parish in the world, (most were SSPX back then) and hear these well constructed arguments pointing to obvious flaws in modern Roman thought, practice and teaching.  JP2 was a heretic and we had to soldier on until God sorted it out.

Look at Fisheasters now and you have self-described "Traditionalists" who back in the 1980s would have been considered conservative neo-liberal Catholics with their overly charitable interpretations of every statement and error promulgated by the hierarchy.

I think in between the dying off of the stalwarts, who remembered militant Catholicism from their youth, or them becoming Sede-Vacantists as the most militant tended to, and the 30 years of just being worn down by it all, what passes for Traditional Catholicism now is a lot more "foggy" that what passed for Traditional Catholicism 30 years ago.

We'd better have a freaking Chastisement soon or I fear that in another 30-50 years our "traditionalist" off-spring will be praying with the Jews, attending Traditionalist homosexual weddings and trying to limit infanticide to children who have not reached their 3rd birthday.

Indeed, indeed. You were a soft liner in the 80s. Thirty years later, you are now considered extremely rad trad.
Reply
#22
Yep, that's probably fair.
Reply
#23
Amen, ggreg.
Reply
#24
If the Holy Father believes that these Judases should be outside of the Church so much then why doesn't he do something about it?  If he feels so strongly on the matter then what justification does he have for not acting?  This is why he has the command to loose and bind in the first place.
Reply
#25
(08-30-2012, 03:04 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: Msgr. Barriero noted that submission of will and intellect is required when it comes to the official teachings of the Church, rather than prudential opinions.  “For example,” he said, “it is required for the teaching on abortion, but there can be legitimate differences of opinion among Catholics on how to take care of the poor.”

Am I the only one who finds this attitude a little odd? You're a bad Catholic if you don't hang out at pro-life rallies all day, but Catholic social teaching as explicated by the popes from Leo XIII to the current Holy Father? Who cares? Single issue politics, I guess.
Reply
#26
(08-30-2012, 01:18 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(08-30-2012, 03:04 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: Msgr. Barriero noted that submission of will and intellect is required when it comes to the official teachings of the Church, rather than prudential opinions.  “For example,” he said, “it is required for the teaching on abortion, but there can be legitimate differences of opinion among Catholics on how to take care of the poor.”

Am I the only one who finds this attitude a little odd? You're a bad Catholic if you don't hang out at pro-life rallies all day, but Catholic social teaching as explicated by the popes from Leo XIII to the current Holy Father? Who cares? Single issue politics, I guess.

It's certainly not an attitude I advocate.
Reply
#27
(08-30-2012, 01:18 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(08-30-2012, 03:04 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: Msgr. Barriero noted that submission of will and intellect is required when it comes to the official teachings of the Church, rather than prudential opinions.  “For example,” he said, “it is required for the teaching on abortion, but there can be legitimate differences of opinion among Catholics on how to take care of the poor.”

Am I the only one who finds this attitude a little odd? You're a bad Catholic if you don't hang out at pro-life rallies all day, but Catholic social teaching as explicated by the popes from Leo XIII to the current Holy Father? Who cares? Single issue politics, I guess.

Oh, Lord.   That's not what he's saying at all.

He's making a distinction between something which is defined dogma and something which is more flexible.  Catholics MUST believe that Jesus Christ came to Earth for man.  As far as the nuances of exactly why one can look at things from a more Thomistic or a more Scotus-like stance.

That doesn't mean that one is more important than the other.

All that's being said here is that one is required to accept doctrine which is de fide, but not all areas of being Catholic are that definable or explicit.
Reply
#28
That's the $65,000 question Walty but I suspect the answer contains the following elements and more besides.

He's a somewhat effeminate weakling who does not like confrontation, and let's face it, if he were to excommunicate US and UK politicians who claim to be Catholic while supporting abortion the gloves would come off.  It would be open war against Catholics and many would run for the hills, including some of us.  That is not a bad thing if you trust in God to work a miracle and save you, but it took a small boy David to have the courage to fight Golaith.  Not only did David have great faith but he must have had balls of steel to face down a violent animal like Goliath.

He is afraid of the wolves and neither has faith in God nor the promise of Our Lady of Fatima.  He's very risk averse.

He has a mush mind and after years of looking at all moral issues from two perspectives he cannot fully commit to one perspective.  He's lost the ability to see clearly.

He's dishonest with the laity and with himself.

***    Ordinary and Extraordinary forms are "two forms of the same rite" and "there is no contradiction between them".  Any fool can see that this is patently not true.

***      The Third Secret of Fatima "has been published in its entirety".  We know this is not true, because we have journalistic quotes of things Ratzinger himself said about the Third Secret which do not correspond to the bullets and arrows vision as well as the overwhelming evidence presented in Socci's and Ferrara's two books.

I remember lots of people being excited at JP2's election.  Here was this young polish priest who knew and understood Communism, Socialisim and Liberalism and would stem the tide and be tough with the liberals.  26 years later Trads were bitterly disappointed.

This Pope has had over 7 years and we've only got milquetoast statements from him.  I doubt he has another seven years, he is 85, so barring a miraculous about turn, you've experienced the best of his pontificate already.  The "German Shepherd" turned out to have little bark and even less bite.

We're gonna have to wait and wait some more.
Reply
#29
(08-30-2012, 08:50 AM)Meg Wrote:
(08-30-2012, 08:44 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote: No, they should be kicked out, excommunicated and anathematized.  At least once in a while.  HF makes it sound like some sort of revolving dorr where you just come in and out and in depending on how you feel-- and while true that sinners are always welcomed back to the fold, we must remember that this is the Church militant.  Our leaders exist to protect the flock and the faith.  Simply suggesting that non-believers leave is not enough. 

Why didn't Jesus kick Judas out? He had the power to do so, didn't he?

He also had the power to prevent the Romans (or the Jews, if you want to look at it that way) from crucifying Him, and He chose not to. His crucifixion was part of the plan, and so was Judas. Kind of like Gollum in the Lord of the Rings -- he was evil, but he was necessary. The war wouldn't have been won without him. He had a vital part to play, and so did Judas.
Reply
#30
(08-30-2012, 01:38 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: He also had the power to prevent the Romans (or the Jews, if you want to look at it that way) from crucifying Him, and He chose not to. His crucifixion was part of the plan, and so was Judas. Kind of like Gollum in the Lord of the Rings -- he was evil, but he was necessary. The war wouldn't have been won without him. He had a vital part to play, and so did Judas.

This sounds like Judas was a cosmic puppet with no free will. But Judas is condemned for his choice. The war could have been won without him. He was not a necessary evil.

God's foreknowledge and permissive will is not like an author writing a screenplay or a novel, setting a stage with antagonist characters. God never ordains anyone to sin. Judas, along with the Sanhedrin and Pilate, could have changed directions. Jesus could have still died for our sins in some mysterious way we don't know of.. without the help of these murderers.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)