Georgetown's Fr. Reese: Another Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
#21
(11-08-2012, 02:40 PM)Walty Wrote:
(11-08-2012, 02:38 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(11-08-2012, 02:00 AM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(11-08-2012, 12:28 AM)MRose Wrote: Two words:

Full communion.

Came here to say this.

Yes, there are so many bad men within the Church that it can now be said that there is only an invisible communion of believers. NewChurch's ecclesiology is outdated.

[Image: cpticker.jpg]

If you could make one, it might go in the sig.
Reply
#22
The Pope finds it more important to deal with a renegade and marginalized bishop (even in his own former society) than to deal with priests like this, whose reach and influence extend far beyond any traditionalist's ever will.
Reply
#23
This interpretation of authority and tradition in the contemporary RCC leads to just this kind of paradox.  Obviously, people like this priest recognize that all they have to do is voice assent to the "teachings of Vatican II" and express formal allegience to the pope, and in exchange, they can do and preach whatever they want.  There was a Franciscan who explained it rather nicely on CAF (he went by the title JREducation, and I wondered whether it was a cryptogram for re-education).  He wrote that because the pope is the supreme legislator of the Church, the pope can define discipline however he wants.  It is then the Catholic's obligation to obey, which includes submitting the intellect to assent.  The popes, having expressed that the paramount discipline is to assent to V2 and papal authority, leave the Catholic no space to dissent.  In effect, "tradition" means  one thing:  obeying the will of the pope.  That is why, JRE wrote, the people in greatest danger of damnation are traditionalists, because they remain under the jurisdiction of the pope, are bound to obey and assent, yet do not.    When confronted with examples like the rector of Georgetown U, JREd explained that it falls clearly within a pope's authority to loose some and bind others, and we are not permitted to challenge the prudence of the magisterium in carrying out the decision.  The position is hard to assail, if one agrees that tradition means what JREd thinks it does.   

 
Reply
#24
(11-09-2012, 03:27 PM)Warrenton Wrote: This interpretation of authority and tradition in the contemporary RCC leads to just this kind of paradox.  Obviously, people like this priest recognize that all they have to do is voice assent to the "teachings of Vatican II" and express formal allegience to the pope, and in exchange, they can do and preach whatever they want.  There was a Franciscan who explained it rather nicely on CAF (he went by the title JREducation, and I wondered whether it was a cryptogram for re-education).  He wrote that because the pope is the supreme legislator of the Church, the pope can define discipline however he wants.  It is then the Catholic's obligation to obey, which includes submitting the intellect to assent.  The popes, having expressed that the paramount discipline is to assent to V2 and papal authority, leave the Catholic no space to dissent.  In effect, "tradition" means  one thing:  obeying the will of the pope.  That is why, JRE wrote, the people in greatest danger of damnation are traditionalists, because they remain under the jurisdiction of the pope, are bound to obey and assent, yet do not.     When confronted with examples like the rector of Georgetown U, JREd explained that it falls clearly within a pope's authority to loose some and bind others, and we are not permitted to challenge the prudence of the magisterium in carrying out the decision.   The position is hard to assail, if one agrees that tradition means what JREd thinks it does.   

   
I have argued with him. 100% V-II. No "tolerance" for any Traditional mindset. He also seems to think that Franciscans should be running everything. Very  argumentative about previous councils, and quotes V-II as the fifth Gospel. Funny thing on VAF now. If you argue with him and he cannot defend his modernist ideology, the post will get deleted and you get banned.  :)
Reply
#25
(11-09-2012, 03:43 PM)Dmorgan Wrote: I have argued with him. 100% V-II. No "tolerance" for any Traditional mindset. He also seems to think that Franciscans should be running everything. Very  argumentative about previous councils, and quotes V-II as the fifth Gospel. Funny thing on VAF now. If you argue with him and he cannot defend his modernist ideology, the post will get deleted and you get banned.  :)

Yes, I have first hand experience of that. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)