Holy Father: If You Don't Agree, Then Just Get Out
#51
Look if Benedict XVI, JPII besides the others didn't bring such scandal-(really an overused word that's increasingly losing it's meaning) nobody would be "bashing" them. And when did pointing out their "scandalous" acts equate to "bashing". Are we just to close our eyes and deny these things ever take place or that it's totally UNACCEPTABLE for the leader of the Catholic Church in the world to to such things?? Are people not allowed to point out the total modernism and dare I say, out and out heresy of some these Popes? The Catechism section that states that Jews and Muslims have the same God as us. (they deny the Trinity and therefore do not have the same God) what about that?? There is no escaping the FACT it's heretical.

It's "nice" (think Voris) that Benedict XVI told Nancy Pelosi that Catholics cannot be pro-choice...what would have been better would have been for him to do the 1500's thing.......EXCOMMUNICATE her. The church went from cracking down on heretics in the 1500's to just allowing them to flip off the Pope and laugh in his face while they walk down the aisle for Communion.

The whole "crisis"-again another overused word that's increasingly losing it's meaning could be fixed and or avoided if some of the higher ups would exercise that authority given them by our Lord and stop playing politics for popularity. Who cares if the cool kids don't like you they suck and they're on their way to hell. They can have their abortion, homosexual "marriage", and false gods. KICK THEM OUT!!! We don't need them here or in the hereafter.  :angrywom:

Reply
#52
(08-30-2012, 04:49 PM)Graham Wrote:
(08-30-2012, 03:30 PM)ggreg Wrote:    “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)

So basically he's saying that modernism is no longer a heresy, but the Church was right to declare it one at the time.

This is not saying that modernism is no longer a heresy, but the details of how modernism manifests itself are no longer the same.
Reply
#53
(08-30-2012, 05:03 PM)ggreg Wrote:
(08-30-2012, 04:41 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(08-30-2012, 04:08 PM)ggreg Wrote: 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.

If you are talking about me, then man up and do it by name.  If this is just some rant about something you have imagined, it is not worth responding to.

If I was talking exclusively about you, my darling Jayne, I would have added "wannabe sophists" to the above list.

There are plenty of other people on this forum though who refuse to engage with the facts so why would I single you out?

As I suspected it was just a straw man argument with little relation to reality.  How ironic that you refer to your imaginings as facts.
Reply
#54
You definitely need to work on your sophistry.

Still not answering the questions, I see, despite the fact that Walty and INPEFESS and Traditionalmon have asked you.

I'm off to Father Thwaites funeral.  Back over the weekend.
Reply
#55
(08-30-2012, 05:09 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-30-2012, 04:38 PM)JayneK Wrote: I think you must not be understanding something properly.

But don't you see the slippery slope you're on?

Both of these statements are infallibly true: "X is true; X is not true. X is an eternal truth as it was experienced in historical context A. X is not true is an eternal truth as it was experienced in historical context B. If you disagree, you just must not understand. These are complex subjects, you know, and you're just a lay person. Just submit your reason and all contradictions disappear." Of course they do! There can be no contradiction without reason!

That's exactly what St. Pius X taught that Modernists say when you show them the error of what they are saying: "You must not understand what I mean."

Rather than actually demonstrate the philosophical consistency of the doctrine proposed as well as where the Church has always taught this doctrine, you are using the same excuse as they to argue that there really isn't any contradiction involved.

The difference between contingent truths and eternal truths is real and important.  Just because it is a mistake to pretend the distinction is there when it is not, does not mean that we should ignore this distinction when it actually exists.

Modernists might say "You must not understand what I mean," but that does not mean that everyone who says this is a modernist.  This really is complicated stuff and it really is easy for people with little training in it to misunderstand it.
Reply
#56
(08-30-2012, 06:03 PM)traditionalmom Wrote: Look if Benedict XVI, JPII besides the others didn't bring such scandal-(really an overused word that's increasingly losing it's meaning) nobody would be "bashing" them. And when did pointing out their "scandalous" acts equate to "bashing". Are we just to close our eyes and deny these things ever take place or that it's totally UNACCEPTABLE for the leader of the Catholic Church in the world to to such things?? Are people not allowed to point out the total modernism and dare I say, out and out heresy of some these Popes? The Catechism section that states that Jews and Muslims have the same God as us. (they deny the Trinity and therefore do not have the same God) what about that?? There is no escaping the FACT it's heretical.

It's "nice" (think Voris) that Benedict XVI told Nancy Pelosi that Catholics cannot be pro-choice...what would have been better would have been for him to do the 1500's thing.......EXCOMMUNICATE her. The church went from cracking down on heretics in the 1500's to just allowing them to flip off the Pope and laugh in his face while they walk down the aisle for Communion.

The whole "crisis"-again another overused word that's increasingly losing it's meaning could be fixed and or avoided if some of the higher ups would exercise that authority given them by our Lord and stop playing politics for popularity. Who cares if the cool kids don't like you they suck and they're on their way to hell. They can have their abortion, homosexual "marriage", and false gods. KICK THEM OUT!!! We don't need them here or in the hereafter.  :angrywom:

Well said! What's even more contradictory is that Benedict was just talking about the hypocrisy of pretending to believe if you really don't, but he doesn't do anything about it. He basically told them "it's dishonest," but where's the punishment for not believing? If truth is that serious, then why isn't it taken seriously? If you don't believe, you're not even a Christian and are outside the Church. Where is this reaffirmed?

Instead, we get things like: 'Even those who have not yet embraced the fullness of the Gospel are not completely excluded from the plan of salvation; for God is present and operative even in the diverse religious traditions and values that unite people of faith into the single voice of humanity--the people of God--who together never cease their quest for the Divine. Indeed, this quest for truth is a life-long journey that involves the entire human community, grants it a share in the abundance of spiritual riches and gifts that these diverse religious traditions and experiences have to offer, and, thus, provides access to the economy of salvation. It is through this goal of unity that the prayer of our Saviour is particularly relevant today: that they all may be one.'
Reply
#57
(08-30-2012, 06:40 PM)JayneK Wrote: The difference between contingent truths and eternal truths is real and important.

Please provide the Church's teaching on it so it can be shown that Benedict XVI's teaching is consistent with the eternal teaching of the Church.
Quote:Modernists might say "You must not understand what I mean," but that does not mean that everyone who says this is a modernist.

I did not argue that it meant that. I argued that it was an excuse used to avoid having to address the contradiction. Since the contradiction hasn't been addressed, that excuse looks suspicious.
Quote:  This really is complicated stuff and it really is easy for people with little training in it to misunderstand it.

Of course, but you're restating your point and avoiding mine. I distinguished between the two complexities and why one was acceptable and one wasn't. You are simply reverting to: "It's complex." I already covered that.
Reply
#58
(08-30-2012, 05:14 PM)Walty Wrote: You basically just keeping saying "nothing is wrong with that" without anything to back up your point.

You provided no substantive response to ggreg's post.  You keep saying he's "missing something" beause you don't like the conclusions he's making but can't tell us what you think he's missing.

Is it possible you disagree more because you don't want his conclusions to be true than that you truly believe them not to be?

It is hard to explain things to a person who seems to be lacking the basic concepts of the field.  Especially when he does not seem very interested in learning.  If we took one misunderstanding at a time and worked through it, I might manage, but I am overwhelmed by how much he is wrong.

I can assure you that I truly believe his conclusions are false and genuinely think he has no grasp of the fundamentals of theology.
Reply
#59
(08-30-2012, 06:40 PM)JayneK Wrote: This really is complicated stuff and it really is easy for people with little training in it to misunderstand it.

It's odd that the oath against modernism is written in such clear and simple language then?

Why does it not contain some clear "out clauses", so that contingent truths can be developed, and even reversed, to suit new pastoral realities?

If the Pope who penned it was of the same mind as you, then why did he write a document and force an oath for 60 years, that can be so easily and naturally misinterpreted by the vast majority of Trads, who only went as far as their first university degree?  That seems an incredibly risky thing to do given that 99.9% of Catholics are not, and never were, trained theologians.  I mean, most people would take the man at face value, he's the Pope after all.  An oath against modernism is, after all, an oath against changing doctrine to mean something the Church did not intend.  If the Pope wanted to allow flexibility, surely that should have been specified in the oath, or at least some appendix.

Are you suggesting that the Pope and his team of Vatican theologians did not understand those complexities?

Or am I looking at it too simply?
Reply
#60
(08-30-2012, 05:16 PM)Walty Wrote: Selective Deconstructionism of the Laity.  We all have no real idea what Rome is saying so we must wait for clarification after clarification and then submit blindly.  If there seems to be a contradiction then we just don't understand and ought to be leaving Rome to think for us anyway.

Walty, you have training in theology.  Do you really think that it is easily grasped by people who have not studied it?  Is it just common sense that is apparent to anyone?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)