Holy Father: If You Don't Agree, Then Just Get Out
#31
(08-30-2012, 01:38 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(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.

That's why it's not an apt analogy.  A better one would be the sinners and heretics in the early churches whom St. Paul spoke of in Scripture when he said that they should be rebuked and then kicked out.
Reply
#32
(08-30-2012, 02:17 PM)Walty Wrote:
(08-30-2012, 01:38 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(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.

That's why it's not an apt analogy.  A better one would be the sinners and heretics in the early churches whom St. Paul spoke of in Scripture when he said that they should be rebuked and then kicked out.

Something like this?

"A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment." (Titus 3:10-11)
Reply
#33
(08-30-2012, 02:31 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote:
(08-30-2012, 02:17 PM)Walty Wrote:
(08-30-2012, 01:38 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(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.

That's why it's not an apt analogy.  A better one would be the sinners and heretics in the early churches whom St. Paul spoke of in Scripture when he said that they should be rebuked and then kicked out.

Something like this?

"A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment." (Titus 3:10-11)

Yes.  And in other letters he goes further than just "avoid" but specifically tells the churches to remove them.
Reply
#34
(08-30-2012, 05:19 AM)ggreg Wrote: Didn't this Pope take the oath against modernism when he was ordained?

Perhaps seminarian Ratzinger should have resigned and left the Church too, rather than take a sacred oath and fail to keep it.

He clearly did not agree with all of it when he took that oath, because his works and his writings since then display his belief in mutable truth and evolving dogma.

What a shame that an OP about something good said by the Pope is used as an opportunity for pope-bashing.

I have seen no sign that Pope Benedict believes in mutable truth and evolving dogma as it is rejected in the Oath against Modernism.  He does believe in legitimate development of doctrine, as orthodox Catholics normally do.  A person with little training in theology might not be able to tell these apart.  However, even a person with little training in theology ought to be able to figure out that pope-bashing is bad idea.
Reply
#35
Yes hh believes in the development of eens to inviting pagans atheists abd animists for a sleepover
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#36
(08-30-2012, 03:12 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: Yes hh believes in the development of eens to inviting pagans atheists abd animists for a sleepover

dk!  You're back!      :LOL:
Reply
#37
(08-30-2012, 02:16 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(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.

Fair enough. I'd be in way over my head if I tried to make any kind of definitive pronouncement on this. It's food for thought, though. Jesus certainly could have stopped Judas (or Pilate, or any of the others), and He didn't. Why He didn't, and what would have happened if He did, is not for us to know.
Reply
#38
(08-30-2012, 03:08 PM)JayneK Wrote: I have seen no sign that Pope Benedict believes in mutable truth and evolving dogma as it is rejected in the Oath against Modernism.  He does believe in legitimate development of doctrine, as orthodox Catholics normally do.  A person with little training in theology might not be able to tell these apart.


Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. . . .  [Oath Against Modernism]

If the meaning has not changed Jayne, then WTF are any of us doing here?  Clearly from the fruits of Vatican II some of the meanings to some of the doctrines must have changed or Assisi I and II would not be possible.  If it was a "legitimate development" of doctrine how could it possibly spawn the disasterous and radical change it did.  Did the Holy Spirit fall asleep and stop guarding the Church?  Did The Holy Spirit allow a massive falling away because of "legitimate developments"?

Here are two of +Ratzinger's denials of the nature of truth, which winds up convincing people that God Himself is mutable--or, at the very least, so obscurant in His Revelation that it is possible for men to arrive at different conclusions at different times given the "complexity" of what and how He has Revealed:

   The text [of the Second Vatican Council] also presents the various forms of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms -- perhaps for the first time with this clarity -- that there are decisions of the Magisterium that cannot be a last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. Its nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times have influenced, may need further ramifications.


   “In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from immersion in the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they become obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at the proper moment.” (L'Osservatore Romano, July 2, 1990)

  It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.

   On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change.
(Christmas Address to Curia, December 22, 2005.)

   

These beliefs have been condemned by the authority of the Catholic Church. Condemned. One who asserts these things publicly commits grave crimes against the Faith, misrepresenting the nature of God Himself and thus misleading souls into believing that God is mutable or at least so obscure in His Revelation that we can know nothing about Him with certainty on a permanent basis, making  a mockery of the Act of Faith.

Here are some simple reminders of how the positions held by +Ratzinger, who exemplifies in his very person the apostate ethos of conciliarism, have  been condemned by the Catholic Church:

   Hence, that meaning of the sacred dogmata is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be an abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.... If anyone says that it is possible that at some given time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmata propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has always understood and understands: let him be anathema. [Vatican Council, 1870.]

Jayne - Is Divine Revelation imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason?

''The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth." Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: "Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries -- but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation." [Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.]
Reply
#39
^ Bingo.
Reply
#40
What makes me laugh about these popolators and defenders of the indefensible is that they've arrived at Tradition by seeing contradictions and errors in their false faiths or in their Novus Ordo parishes, dioceses and nation states.

They've believed falsehood before.  They once believed perhaps that the Church was false or that Christ was not God, or that Traditionalists were wrong or they had no interest in the faith at all.   Finally, it has dawned on them that Traditionalists may have a point and they deign to read the arguments and are won over.  They become "Traditionalists", in quotes for obvious reasons, and then tell Traditionalists who've been defending the castle for 30 years that they are misinterpreting the Pope and maybe he's a good guy or a prisoner in the Vatican or we are being uncharitable for suggesting the Pope does not love the Old Mass despite the fact he has never celebrated it during his pontificate.  Don't they realise we've heard all of their shit before?

It's very annoying.  They assume we get some sort of delight or thrill out of throwing stones at the Pope, when for nearly every Trads I know nothing could be further from the truth.  If B16 had excommunicated 2 dozen bishops, retired a dozen of the worst Cardinals, told us the real Third Secret of Fatima and Consecrated Russia to the IHM as well as enforced a Tridentine Mass to be said in every parish in the world where a NO was said, even the most Rad Trad would be behind him.  I dare say Hutton Gibson would support a Pope like that.

Father Moderator would probably kiss the man's feet.

If we wanted to be Protestants we would simply be Protestants (like some of you used to be).
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)