Second Catholic Answers Radio Show on Rad Trads Tonight (Aug 12) !
#11
(08-12-2013, 01:22 PM)Basilios Wrote: I've got my mad-trad face on right now and I'm gonna play into their stereotypes by saying that what really, really puts me off is the way the host can be so incredibly smug sounding. I know he's probably a great guy, but damnit sometimes I just wanna smack him upside the head.

Reminds me of Raymond Arroyo (???) - my golly gosh when I see the guy speak my jimmies cannot contain the rustling!

Dude looks like PeeWee Herman.
Reply
#12
is anyone else listening right now?  curious about mad trad reactions.
Reply
#13
It was a boring show, as usual if you are orthodox but not in "official" union with Rome you are bad, a heretic, a schismatic but if you are a Novus Ordo type rejecting this n that dogma but in union with your bishop then your kosher apparently. The whole thing would be great if they had the same strong standards against the Novus Ordo bishops blasting them on the airwaves as they do for the radical trads.
Reply
#14
(08-12-2013, 11:55 AM)devoutchristian Wrote: If they're radio call screeners are like their forum moderators then no trads will be able to call in.

Completely accurate. 
Reply
#15
Edited because suggesting the Pope, Patrick Coffin, Catholic Answers, their radio hosts, or writers and and or were wrong is inappropriate as a laymen commenting from a message board outside the situation.

I apologize to the the Pope, Patrick Coffin, the Church, the Bishops, Priests, Clergy, Cardinals, and any or all individuals or organizations mentioned such as Catholic Ansers, the radio hosts and or writers for any sins of hatred, malice, Gossip, Detraction, Calumny, and/or Slander caused by this post and others in the thread or Fisheaters.com as well as any and all other sins by it committed such as scandal, racism, prejudice, bigotry, and any and all sins others fell or might fall into by reading them as a result.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son,
and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be,
world without end. Amen.
Reply
#16
I missed it. Somehow I'm ok with that  :LOL:

I am however, curious if they are still comparing the nwo to the Kingdom of Christ.  :eyeroll:
Reply
#17
(08-12-2013, 11:36 PM)Sant Anselmo Wrote:
(08-12-2013, 11:55 AM)devoutchristian Wrote: If they're radio call screeners are like their forum moderators then no trads will be able to call in.

Completely accurate. 

Re: the forum moderators.  And how.  If this is possible, it's gotten worse recently.  It's all a matter of degrees over there.

Regarding the show: I was able to hear only 30 minutes of it.  They did indeed let some trads call in.  ( Not all callers were trads, I think, but had questions relating to that.)  For those who did not hear that portion -- or any of it, Staples listened to a caller who had corrected him on Abp. Lefevre (the timing of it all).  The caller brought up Assisi, and, to my surprise, Staples acknowledged legitimate concern about that, going so far as to admit that JP2 made some changes in Assisi 2 after Assisi I and the reaction to that, and in that statement Staples all but admitted (also), at least i.m.o., that JP2 may have exercised some bad judgment about that.

Further, Staples all but acknowledged that JP2 might have committed error/sin in those events.  Then Staples said, "The authority of a Pope is not affected by his sinfulness" [I'm shortening this].  It doesn't allow us to sin (to "disobey," he said) even if the Pope is committing a gravely sinful act.  Staples tried to compare that "disobedience" with the disobedience on the Left, regarding Cafeteria Catholicism kinds of attitudes.  But that was a logical error, because bishops, priests, and Popes are not asking Cafeteria Catholics to do something sinful, scandalous, or to comply with that.  The conscience clause can operate when someone in religious life, for example, is ordered to do something objectively sinful/evil by his or her religious Superior.

I'm not making a judgment about the SSPX, merely saying that I don't think that Staples made the case that the society had behaved analogously to (liberal) Cafeteria Catholics who don't want to follow doctrine, and declare themselves a separate authority.  (Staples ended that conversation by stating that a bishop must NEVER disobey, and technically, that's not true.)

Reply
#18
(08-12-2013, 11:29 AM)guacamole Wrote: Hmm.

i skimmed the linked article.  i listened to the first show.

i'm not sure what to say.  i've expressed my disappointment with angry trads since i joined Fisheaters several weeks ago.  so i agree with much of the article.  however, there are some distortions and i don't like hearing these things from a 'conservative' catholic -- especially a convert from protestantism and 'professional catholic.'  i'm thinking, 'okay, these so-called mad trads have brought it on themselves.' and that's true.  the stupid photo of the angry guy pointing is kind of appropriate, i have to say.  but . . . i still think of you guys as my peeps.  i feel heartsick saying that.

wish i knew how to quit you. ???

I think most trads who get mad are just very aggravated at being socially labeled as heretics just by adhering to their beliefs, and are thusly protective of their beliefs. Sometimes, their ways of communicating can be brusque and off putting, but I think that has more to do with individual personalities than with traditionalism in general.  At the Latin mass that I've attended, there are few if any pre V2 congregants and they're all learning and are patient and kind to New comers. But at my NO mass, I've had pre V2 ladies make a big deal over my wearing a Juliet cap to mass,if I'm going to bother veiling, I should do it properly, etc. It just depends on the person that you're dealing with.

I don't blame trads for getting mad. You're in, you're out, you're in, you're out...it can be exhausting and frustrating not knowing where you stand according to which way the wind blows.
Reply
#19
(08-13-2013, 12:42 AM)Miriam_M Wrote:
(08-12-2013, 11:36 PM)Sant Anselmo Wrote:
(08-12-2013, 11:55 AM)devoutchristian Wrote: If they're radio call screeners are like their forum moderators then no trads will be able to call in.

Completely accurate. 

Re: the forum moderators.  And how.  If this is possible, it's gotten worse recently.  It's all a matter of degrees over there.

Regarding the show: I was able to hear only 30 minutes of it.  They did indeed let some trads call in.  ( Not all callers were trads, I think, but had questions relating to that.)  For those who did not hear that portion -- or any of it, Staples listened to a caller who had corrected him on Abp. Lefevre (the timing of it all).  The caller brought up Assisi, and, to my surprise, Staples acknowledged legitimate concern about that, going so far as to admit that JP2 made some changes in Assisi 2 after Assisi I and the reaction to that, and in that statement Staples all but admitted (also), at least i.m.o., that JP2 may have exercised some bad judgment about that.

Further, Staples all but acknowledged that JP2 might have committed error/sin in those events.  Then Staples said, "The authority of a Pope is not affected by his sinfulness" [I'm shortening this].  It doesn't allow us to sin (to "disobey," he said) even if the Pope is committing a gravely sinful act.  Staples tried to compare that "disobedience" with the disobedience on the Left, regarding Cafeteria Catholicism kinds of attitudes.  But that was a logical error, because bishops, priests, and Popes are not asking Cafeteria Catholics to do something sinful, scandalous, or to comply with that.  The conscience clause can operate when someone in religious life, for example, is ordered to do something objectively sinful/evil by his or her religious Superior.

I'm not making a judgment about the SSPX, merely saying that I don't think that Staples made the case that the society had behaved analogously to (liberal) Cafeteria Catholics who don't want to follow doctrine, and declare themselves a separate authority.  (Staples ended that conversation by stating that a bishop must NEVER disobey, and technically, that's not true.)

But the real issue is not whether JPII "sinned".  The real issue is whether what he did at Assisi even in line with traditional Catholic teaching.  The real issue is: is the doctrine of ecumenism per Vatican II (that ALL of the conciliar popes seem to worship) even CATHOLIC?  That's the real issue and it's the issue that MANY do not want to even look at let alone address the Popes' involvement.  So it's much easier to compare those who have an issue with these actions to those who disagree with Church doctrine.  In reality those who question these actions are actually defending traditional Church doctrine.

Reply
#20
(08-13-2013, 06:48 AM)2Vermont Wrote:
(08-13-2013, 12:42 AM)Miriam_M Wrote:
(08-12-2013, 11:36 PM)Sant Anselmo Wrote:
(08-12-2013, 11:55 AM)devoutchristian Wrote: If they're radio call screeners are like their forum moderators then no trads will be able to call in.

Completely accurate. 

Re: the forum moderators.  And how.  If this is possible, it's gotten worse recently.  It's all a matter of degrees over there.

Regarding the show: I was able to hear only 30 minutes of it.  They did indeed let some trads call in.  ( Not all callers were trads, I think, but had questions relating to that.)  For those who did not hear that portion -- or any of it, Staples listened to a caller who had corrected him on Abp. Lefevre (the timing of it all).  The caller brought up Assisi, and, to my surprise, Staples acknowledged legitimate concern about that, going so far as to admit that JP2 made some changes in Assisi 2 after Assisi I and the reaction to that, and in that statement Staples all but admitted (also), at least i.m.o., that JP2 may have exercised some bad judgment about that.

Further, Staples all but acknowledged that JP2 might have committed error/sin in those events.  Then Staples said, "The authority of a Pope is not affected by his sinfulness" [I'm shortening this].  It doesn't allow us to sin (to "disobey," he said) even if the Pope is committing a gravely sinful act.  Staples tried to compare that "disobedience" with the disobedience on the Left, regarding Cafeteria Catholicism kinds of attitudes.  But that was a logical error, because bishops, priests, and Popes are not asking Cafeteria Catholics to do something sinful, scandalous, or to comply with that.  The conscience clause can operate when someone in religious life, for example, is ordered to do something objectively sinful/evil by his or her religious Superior.

I'm not making a judgment about the SSPX, merely saying that I don't think that Staples made the case that the society had behaved analogously to (liberal) Cafeteria Catholics who don't want to follow doctrine, and declare themselves a separate authority.  (Staples ended that conversation by stating that a bishop must NEVER disobey, and technically, that's not true.)

But the real issue is not whether JPII "sinned".  The real issue is whether what he did at Assisi even in line with traditional Catholic teaching.  The real issue is: is the doctrine of ecumenism per Vatican II (that ALL of the conciliar popes seem to worship) even CATHOLIC?  That's the real issue and it's the issue that MANY do not want to even look at let alone address the Popes' involvement.  So it's much easier to compare those who have an issue with these actions to those who disagree with Church doctrine.  In reality those who question these actions are actually defending traditional Church doctrine.

Whether or not he sinned doesn't matter in the least as the NO will place him on it's tables very soon.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)