Pope Francis's Apostolic Exhortation «Evangelii Gaudium»
#11
(11-26-2013, 03:42 PM)christusregnat Wrote: I knew there was something about Pope Francis that I didn't like.
He's trying to be like Christ. The more I discover about Francis the more I like him, and the way he talks about traditional Catholicism in particular. We've reached a point of no return and either traditionalists will break away entirely, or there will be a mutually beneficial restoration.
Reply
#12
I apologize for any sins of Gossip, Detraction, Calumny, and/or Slander caused by this post, as well as any other sins committed, and any sins others fell or will fall into by reading it 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
#13
I don't see why, if greater local responsibility is the intended approach, the practice of particular synods/councils is not restored (provincial, national,etc.), rather than trying to figure out how their attributes can be applied to bishops' conferences.  Such councils already have have a long, historical tradition in the praxis of the Church, as well as having been required by the First Council of Nicea and the Council of Trent, and their importance affirmed by the Second Vatican Council.    

Also, the primacy does not mean centralization is necessary or always desireable--subsidiarity is a good, even in the Church.  In fact, centralization was traditionally seen as more of an extraordinary measure.  At the First Vatican Council, there was heavy debate over calling the Pope's universal jurisdiction "ordinary."  It had to be clarified by the relator that this term meant only that his jusrisdiction was not delegated, not that he would thereby habitually take over the usual government of every diocese and region.  This in fact would be contrary to the divine constitution of the Church, by which all the bishops have ordinary jurisdiction (although not all individually over the whole Church), and are not to be treated as vicars of the Roman Pontiff.  The primacy exists to service unity and strengthen the authority of bishops.  For example, St. Gregory taught that all bishops should be treated as equals, unless their is some fault that needs to be addressed (cf. Book IX Letter 59).

On the other hand, centralization is not always bad.  It was judged necessary during such periods as the Gregorian reform, for example.  The Reformation, due to being so complex, saw a mixed approach, with the both the growth of the Curia, but also a renewed emphasis on provincial and diocesan synods.

Ultimately, it is up to the Pope to determine how to exercise the primacy.  It is not unreasonable to think that, given the diverse circumstances the particular Churches all over the world find themselves in, initiatives for evangelization and to deal with various prblems are best handled as locally as possible. There are also arguments for greater centralization. Centralization, however, is traditionally less "normal."  Plus, FWIW, the greatest act of centralized authority in the Church was probably the promulgation of the novus Ordo.
Reply
#14
(11-26-2013, 03:48 PM)Ray M Facere Wrote: The meme of traditionalists as neopelagian continues ... or the smack down of "toxic trads" (depending on how you look at it):

It seems more like "toxic trads" not all trads: trusting in their own powers, feeling superior to others, exhausting one's energies classifying others, pointing out their faults rather than evangelizing, ostentatious preoccupation with certain issues while neglecting actually living the Gospel, etc.

It seems to me he is saying the people who do the above are in the wrong, not that all people who care about orthodoxy and the liturgy do the above.  Since he has not named any names, I find St. Jerome's advice good:

"When anything is written against some particular vice, but without the mention of any name, if a man grows angry he accuses himself. It would have been the part of a wise man, even if he felt hurt, to dissemble his consciousness of wrong, and by the serenity of his countenance to dissipate the cloud that lay upon his heart."

Reply
#15
(11-26-2013, 04:18 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(11-26-2013, 03:48 PM)Ray M Facere Wrote: The meme of traditionalists as neopelagian continues ... or the smack down of "toxic trads" (depending on how you look at it):

It seems more like "toxic trads" not all trads: trusting in their own powers, feeling superior to others, exhausting one's energies classifying others, pointing out their faults rather than evangelizing, ostentatious preoccupation with certain issues while neglecting actually living the Gospel, etc.

It seems to me he is saying the people who do the above are in the wrong, not that all people who care about orthodoxy and the liturgy do the above.  Since he has not named any names, I find St. Jerome's advice good:

"When anything is written against some particular vice, but without the mention of any name, if a man grows angry he accuses himself. It would have been the part of a wise man, even if he felt hurt, to dissemble his consciousness of wrong, and by the serenity of his countenance to dissipate the cloud that lay upon his heart."

Exactly. The Holy Father's description is about those who love traditionalism as an end, not a means--whether realized or not. The words convict those who are guilty--whether they have realized it or not.
Reply
#16
(11-26-2013, 02:15 PM)PolishTrad Wrote:
(11-26-2013, 02:06 PM)Geremia Wrote: That's the good part. The bad part, from the section on ecumenism: "Patriarch of Constantinople, His Holiness Bartholomaios I, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, His Grace Rowan Williams"
Why such honorifics for heretics, especially for the latter, who's just a layman‽
I find it strange because when Francis met with Justin Welby he did not refer to him as archbishop even once. Maybe Williams was touched by the Dutch.  :LOL:

Minus Welby, because those are their titles and even before the Council, Bishops were treated as such, even if they were Eastern schismatics.
Reply
#17
The plain fact is our Holy Father, may God richly Bless Him, is a product of Vatican II and the Socialist environment of South America. It shows out in his total conviction to Vatican II, and his ideas on economics and societal concerns. He is what He is. Good, bad or indifferent. I will weigh the comments, homilies, interviews and documents that He gives us against the whole of the Sacred Deposit of the Church. All of it. Not just the past 50 years. If that makes me a soul who is " ostentatious preoccupation for the liturgy, for doctrine and for the Church’s prestige" so be it. I fully and publicly acknowledge that i am preoccupied with the Liturgy, The Doctrines of Holy Mother Church, and the Prestige of the Church as instituted By our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, King of the Universe.
Reply
#18
Some of my thoughts on this.

Quote:247. We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked, for “the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29). The Church, which shares with Jews an important part of the sacred Scriptures, looks upon the people of the covenant and their faith as one of the sacred roots of her own Christian identity (cf. Rom 11:16-18). As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God (cf. 1 Thes 1:9). With them, we believe in the one God who acts in history, and with them we accept his revealed word.

Explain to me how their covenant was not revoked after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD? (or should we be using the secular CE now?) If there is no temple, there are no priestly class, there is no sacrifice, there is no forgiveness of sins, there is no Sheol to go to, there is no Judaism!

We cannot say we accept His revealed word, because the Jews reject the revealed Word that became Flesh.

Quote:248. Dialogue and friendship with the children of Israel are part of the life of Jesus’ disciples. The friendship which has grown between us makes us bitterly and sincerely regret the terrible persecutions which they have endured, and continue to endure, especially those that have involved Christians.

And what of the persecution of Christians at the hands of Jews? Was it not racial jews who ushered in the Communist rebellion that saw the death and persecution of many Christians? What about the ultra-Orthodox religious Jews persecuting Christians in Israel today?

This is not meant to be anti-Zionist/Semetic polemics as these things had and are happening and we see no apology on their part.


Quote:249. God continues to work among the people of the Old Covenant and to bring forth treasures of wisdom which flow from their encounter with his word. For this reason, the Church also is enriched when she receives the values of Judaism. While it is true that certain Christian beliefs are unacceptable to Judaism, and that the Church cannot refrain from proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Messiah, there exists as well a rich complementarity which allows us to read the texts of the Hebrew Scriptures together and to help one another to mine the riches of God’s word. We can also share many ethical convictions and a common concern for justice and the development of peoples.

Is the Roman Catholic Church the Fullness of the Truth because it is the Church on which God Himself founded some 2,000 years ago....or can I go back to being a Lutheran or a Jew? ???

Quote:255. The Synod Fathers spoke of the importance of respect for religious freedom, viewed as a fundamental human right.[202] This includes “the freedom to choose the religion which one judges to be true and to manifest one’s beliefs in public”.[203] A healthy pluralism, one which genuinely respects differences and values them as such, does not entail privatizing religions in an attempt to reduce them to the quiet obscurity of the individual’s conscience or to relegate them to the enclosed precincts of churches, synagogues or mosques. This would represent, in effect, a new form of discrimination and authoritarianism. The respect due to the agnostic or non-believing minority should not be arbitrarily imposed in a way that silences the convictions of the believing majority or ignores the wealth of religious traditions. In the long run, this would feed resentment rather than tolerance and peace.

So if people wish to promote the religion of Satanism we should not have a problem with that? This idea of religious liberty smacks more of Americanism (heresy) rather than Catholicism

"If anyone says that the condition of the faithful and that of those who have not yet come to the true faith is equal: let him be anathema." I Vatican Council
Reply
#19
(11-26-2013, 05:15 PM)Dmorgan Wrote: The plain fact is our Holy Father, may God richly Bless Him, is a product of Vatican II and the Socialist environment of South America. It shows out in his total conviction to Vatican II, and his ideas on economics and societal concerns. He is what He is. Good, bad or indifferent. I will weigh the comments, homilies, interviews and documents that He gives us against the whole of the Sacred Deposit of the Church. All of it. Not just the past 50 years. If that makes me a soul who is " ostentatious preoccupation for the liturgy, for doctrine and for the Church’s prestige" so be it. I fully and publicly acknowledge that i am preoccupied with the Liturgy, The Doctrines of Holy Mother Church, and the Prestige of the Church as instituted By our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, King of the Universe.

Do you think there may be a difference between an ostentatious preoccupation for the liturgy, or in other words, an "excessively boastful near-borderline obsession" and knowing that the Mass of the Ages is the best thing this side of Heaven? The same for doctrine and Church's prestige?

Reply
#20
(11-26-2013, 05:23 PM)austenbosten Wrote: Explain to me how their covenant was not revoked after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD?
From what I understand, this refers to the Abrahamic covenant, which was not revoked with respect to the Jews, but merely extended also to the Gentiles.  This is the covenant of faith, which also requires a response on our part, Jew or Gentile.  But it has not been revoked--"Israel of the flesh" is not now definitively excluded.

Quote:So if people wish to promote the religion of Satanism we should not have a problem with that? This idea of religious liberty smacks more of Americanism (heresy) rather than Catholicism

"If anyone says that the condition of the faithful and that of those who have not yet come to the true faith is equal: let him be anathema." I Vatican Council

Americanism, with regard to liberty, refers to importing certain liberties granted in American soceity into ecclesiastical law and discipline.  So this really is not Americanism.  Likewise, the quote you provide from Vatican I has really nothing to do with religious liberty in the civil sphere.  Here's the whol canon:

Vatican I Wrote:. If anyone says that the condition of the faithful and those who have not yet attained to the only true faith is alike, so that Catholics may have a just cause for calling in doubt, by suspending their assent, the faith which they have already received from the teaching of the Church, until they have completed a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith: let him be anathema.

Anyway, I don't hink the passage you quoted is meant to be an in depth treatise, but more a general statement.  It should be considered according to the Church's understanding of what religious liberty means, which as a right "can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a "public order" conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.  The "due limits" which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order.""(CCC 2109)



Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)