Pope Francis is shaking things up, and the Conservatives don't like it
#21
(08-17-2013, 05:06 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(08-17-2013, 05:00 PM)Tim Wrote: One of us must win big in the Lotto and buy a parcel of land a bit off the beaten path where we can weather the coming troubles. I'd bet Fr. Rodriguez can ride a horse.

tim

Well, I know a FSSP priest, a late vocation, who was a Montana before he went to seminary! :)

Saintly priest. The Carmelites in Wyoming are also cowboys.
Reply
#22
(08-17-2013, 02:12 PM)Asperges me Wrote: I suppose I'm a Traditional Catholic meaning I only like to attend the Latin Mass or a NO Mass put on by the same Franciscans who have stated this:

"Note: In keeping with the dispositions of the Congregation for Religious, Holy Mass is offered at Mt. St. Francis in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. In view of the legitimate options offered in the General Instruction on the Roman Missal and other Church documents, Holy Mass is celebrated ad orientem, and often in the official language of the Church, which is Latin."

http://www.mtstfrancis.com/index.php/gen...r-schedule

LOL  :P

The phrase "traditional Catholicism" means more than just an appreciation for the TLM, though.  For a run-down on what all's involved, see this page:  FETradition  Trads agree on all of those errors listed -- but disagree on the cause, with some being sedevacantist and throwing out all Popes since (typically) Pius XII, others blaming Vatican II documents in themselves, others (like me) believing that Vatican II documents were ambiguously written (on purpose) and have been abused, but they can be read as consistent with the Faith, etc. IOW, trads all agree on the Faith itself; but the causes of the problems, determinations about how deeply those problems run, and where to worship and such are divisive matters.
Reply
#23
(08-17-2013, 05:06 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(08-17-2013, 05:00 PM)Tim Wrote: One of us must win big in the Lotto and buy a parcel of land a bit off the beaten path where we can weather the coming troubles. I'd bet Fr. Rodriguez can ride a horse.

tim

Well, I know a FSSP priest, a late vocation, who was a Montana cowboy before he went to seminary! :)

Sounds like a 60's novel crossed with the Marx Bros. The Vox and the Merry Pranksters take the bus to Montana for Mass while smoking Fatima cigarettes and joking.

tim
Reply
#24
(08-17-2013, 03:50 PM)Whitey Wrote: For example, the sedes don't recognize the pope as a true pope. The rest of the true trads don't think he's orthodox, so if one doesn't accept everything he says or does, then he's not really accepted as pope is he ? If trads would admit this, then the wall between sedes and other trads crumbles.

I think the main difference is in the understanding of Vatican I.  There is the office of the papacy and there is the occupant of the papacy.  Sedes believe that the office is perpetual, not the occupancy (ie. the papacy can still be perpetual without an occupant).  Other trads believe occupancy is also perpetual.  The reading I have been doing has led me to believe that this is the main difference in their understanding of Vatican I. 
Reply
#25
"The progressives and liberals are hailing Pope Francis as their pope" ?

Quite overblown. The NCR gang are hardly doing that. Some there have made some sharp attacks on Pope Francis such as Jamie Manson. And it's only getting started. Pope Francis won't ordain women, upheld the catechism on homosexuality, upheld the Vatican move against the LCWR, etc. None of that is pleasing the "progressives and liberals".

C.
Reply
#26
(08-17-2013, 07:15 PM)2Vermont Wrote:
(08-17-2013, 03:50 PM)Whitey Wrote: For example, the sedes don't recognize the pope as a true pope. The rest of the true trads don't think he's orthodox, so if one doesn't accept everything he says or does, then he's not really accepted as pope is he ? If trads would admit this, then the wall between sedes and other trads crumbles.

I think the main difference is in the understanding of Vatican I.  There is the office of the papacy and there is the occupant of the papacy.  Sedes believe that the office is perpetual, not the occupancy (ie. the papacy can still be perpetual without an occupant).  Other trads believe occupancy is also perpetual.  The reading I have been doing has led me to believe that this is the main difference in their understanding of Vatican I. 

In reality the occupancy is NEVER perpetual as every pope dies creating a vacancy. Show me a document that defines just how long a vacancy is. Is it 55 years? 51 years? 49 years? 5 years? 6 months? 1 month? three weeks?
Reply
#27
I think that you cannot see Tradition or the Church in remotely similar ways if you disagree on whether or not a man is pope. For a Catholic, too much depends on it. I imagine it is the same for sedes; otherwise they wouldn't want to be sedes. Take 2 priests, a sede and a non-sede trad: they can say the mass in identical ways, but that is just a similarity of motions. The Church, for each of these men, is completely different, which means that Christ's Body is completely different, and the meaning of history, including the history of salvation and their own personal histories, is completely different. You are left with a union of motions only.

So Whitey, I think the opposite is true. It would be a LOT easier if Pope Francis simply let both liberals and trads have the same freedom to duke it out in the Church. That's the easy road for us, because they will not get vocations, and we will, and then it is game over. All we need is freedom to live as we have and want. That freedom we have. The SSPX does not have it yet. Conservatives will just end up accepting whatever the hierarchy say, which will be a good thing when trads are in the hierarchy.
Reply
#28
(08-17-2013, 09:17 PM)OldMan Wrote:
(08-17-2013, 07:15 PM)2Vermont Wrote:
(08-17-2013, 03:50 PM)Whitey Wrote: For example, the sedes don't recognize the pope as a true pope. The rest of the true trads don't think he's orthodox, so if one doesn't accept everything he says or does, then he's not really accepted as pope is he ? If trads would admit this, then the wall between sedes and other trads crumbles.

I think the main difference is in the understanding of Vatican I.  There is the office of the papacy and there is the occupant of the papacy.  Sedes believe that the office is perpetual, not the occupancy (ie. the papacy can still be perpetual without an occupant).  Other trads believe occupancy is also perpetual.  The reading I have been doing has led me to believe that this is the main difference in their understanding of Vatican I. 
In reality the occupancy is NEVER perpetual as every pope dies creating a vacancy. Show me a document that defines just how long a vacancy is. Is it 55 years? 51 years? 49 years? 5 years? 6 months? 1 month? three weeks?
My understanding is that the papacy is a permanent and constituent element of the Church (just like all of the constituent elements of the Church are permanent).  If the Church lost such an element for even a moment (even if Christ restored it after it was lost), it would violate the dogma of indefectibility.  The papacy is perpetual in that the Church always has a Pope either in "act" or in "potency"--the Church either has a sitting Pope or the power to appoint one (furthermore, since it is willed by Christ that the Church have a visible head, the Church cannot simply decide to not appoint one).  It is one thing to say there is no Pope; it is quite another to claim the Church lacks the means to appoint one--at that point, both the occupant and the office have been lost and the Church has defected. 
Reply
#29
(08-17-2013, 01:21 PM)Sant Anselmo Wrote: Pope Francis is Shaking up the Catholic Right... and the Conservatives are taking it out on the Traditionalists

Could this explain some of the actions taken by CA and others over the last couple of months?  Hard to say.  It seems a bit far fetched to me, but perhaps there is a grain or two of truth in there. 

Saint Anselmo, I have also found this page helpful:

http://www.faithfulanswers.com/conservat...tholicism/
Reply
#30
(08-17-2013, 04:40 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: Sorry, but I'm a Catholic who believes the Dogmas defined by the Ecumenical Councils:

Right, we all should. Question : So if pope Francis cannonizes JPII are you going to acknowledge JPII is a saint ?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)