Rorate Caeli: Many FI priests petitioning to be relieved of pontifical vows
#61
Definitely I appreciate your concern for me but I wouldn't make such a weighty decision as becoming Orthodox or Sedevacantist lightly or overnight. Those are things that require much soul searching, reading, study, careful consideration and prayer. I vent here for sure but I'm not so scandalized that I'm spending time at the local Greek monastery or SSPV chapel! I have both within a short drive from here as well as an FSSP TLM a little farther. At heart I'm just venting, putting my thoughts out there and.asking questions. I won't lie, the nearly inevitable Paul VI canonization is very hard to bear, much more so than JPII to be honest. I'm still here though. I've been through this sort of spiritual/intelectual crisis before and so at heart I'm more detached than I have been in the past. These are just weighty, serious issues that vex someone like me who doesn't want a superficial answer. This crisis within Catholicism really is unprecedented and so it would seem we are all in uncharted.waters just groping along trying to make sense of things. I certainly feel sympathy with all of you no matter how you are dealing with it. It's not really so easy. :)
Reply
#62
Arguments about VII are circular, defective reasoning. They go something like this:

1. Vatican II is pastoral. It contained no infallible declarations.
2. But as part of the magisterium of the Church, it requires our assent.
3. So what did it teach?
4 Ecumenism, freedom of conscience, collegiality and subsidiarity "...Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its [the Church's] visible confines".
5 Do these things help our sanctification, individually or collectively? Do they require our faithful assent?
6. No doctrines were proclaimed at Vat II.

Ummmm ....

But Vat II is a very good cover story for the real project; the denial of one or more doctrines of the Church: The Real Presence, the nature of Priesthood, the sinfulness of contraception and divorce, damnation, Judgement, the seriousness of Mortal Sin. This is simple Protestantism come 'round again. We simply can't bear the hard sayings of Jesus and the work they make for us. So we make things easier for ourselves.

Then add the new mass and later populist modifications.

Result: What you see in Catholic schools and churches today.

Modern Catholicism contains contradictions: Holiness through populism, sacrality through mundanity, progression through archeologism, change as part of Tradition. This leads, in  those orders and diocese who espouse these ideas, to an implosion; they are consumed by ennervation. The contradictions sap their energy.

We can see the future of Modern Catholicism in Protestant sects today.
Reply
#63
(05-15-2014, 07:31 AM)Scotus Wrote: Now, multiple sources are telling Rorate that a large number of FI friars -- possibly 100-150 -- are petitioning Rome to be released from their pontifical vows and to be placed under diocesan bishops.

Diocesan bishops are not the answer, as there are so few traditionally minded prelates out there, the order would have to go back to their mendicant roots and follow each bishop each time they are transferred to a different diocese.  Come to think of it, that may not be a bad idea.

I have a great deal of respect for the FFI and pray that they are once again allowed to practice their traditional charism. 
Reply
#64
(05-17-2014, 06:38 PM)Layman Wrote: Arguments about VII are circular, defective reasoning. They go something like this:

1. Vatican II is pastoral. It contained no infallible declarations.
2. But as part of the magisterium of the Church, it requires our assent.
3. So what did it teach?
4 Ecumenism, freedom of conscience, collegiality and subsidiarity "...Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its [the Church's] visible confines".
5 Do these things help our sanctification, individually or collectively? Do they require our faithful assent?
6. No doctrines were proclaimed at Vat II.

Ummmm ....

But Vat II is a very good cover story for the real project; the denial of one or more doctrines of the Church: The Real Presence, the nature of Priesthood, the sinfulness of contraception and divorce, damnation, Judgement, the seriousness of Mortal Sin. This is simple Protestantism come 'round again. We simply can't bear the hard sayings of Jesus and the work they make for us. So we make things easier for ourselves.

Then add the new mass and later populist modifications.

Result: What you see in Catholic schools and churches today.

Modern Catholicism contains contradictions: Holiness through populism, sacrality through mundanity, progression through archeologism, change as part of Tradition. This leads, in  those orders and diocese who espouse these ideas, to an implosion; they are consumed by ennervation. The contradictions sap their energy.

We can see the future of Modern Catholicism in Protestant sects today.

Logical contradistinctions and fallacious reasoning underpin the entire neo-Catholic position.

Here is a little dialogue I read somewhere on the internet:

Neo-Catholic: You must accept Vatican II.
Traditional Catholic: I will accept it if you demonstrate to me, by using reason, that Vatican II is a continuation of Traditional Catholic teaching.
Nei-Catholic: It just is, and if you don't think so then you're a schismatic.
Reply
#65
Miles,

Don't get me wrong. I also believe the entire NO will be abrogated in the future. I just think that it will begin with a process, indeed one that has just begun, and that a part of that road will involve a reform of it. And that eventually it will be removed or reformed to the point of being unrecognizable as the "NO"

Southpaw,
I am not sure I follow you. The highest authorities say that VII cannot be interpreted in contradiction to previous doctrine or Magisterial teachings. Therefore, is it not the case that the only "Church Teachings" we are obliged to accept from VII are those which do not contradict previous Church teaching? I am not talking about the Catechism or any saints, but about the documents of VII. There are no "new teachings" that ever need be accepted. Maybe we need specific examples, I don't know. Or maybe all the popes are to be condemned BY VII, for celebrating Mass facing the people, or for not teaching the people of Rome Latin, or for not giving pride of place to Gregorian chant. What am I to do if VII says Mass should be in Latin but the Pope celebrates it in Italian? Am I to say that he, the Pope is the Supreme Legislator,  above whom there is no one on earth, so he can do whatever he wants anyway? Maybe. But that would mean that we have to ignore the teachings inherent in his actions, and I find this very very very complicated and quite frankly not worth the effort. Does VII say that he can wash the feet of a woman on Holy Thursday, or can the Pope do this because he is Da Man? I know that VII does not call for this. I must suppose he is simply Da Man. Fair enough. But now, what am I to do with the pedagogical and therefore Magisterial effects of his actions? You might say, well, those are not teachings, but actions. In that case, I might go about my own actions and ignore his teachings. Should I be condemned? Better yet. Where is the Magisterium when popes kiss Korans, get "creative" with the liturgy, distribute communion in the hand (sometimes breaking their own rules, as in the case of BXVI and the Queen of Spain). Where is the Magisterium, the "Church Teaching" that is supposed to have it all so clear for me? It is silent as the grave. So no, I think that in a context in which Popes pick and choose what parts of their own liturgical books they want to accept and reject, what parts of their job description they plan to work at or not work at, and in which there is widespread disagreement as to the very meaning of the Conciliar texts themselves, a man must do his best to love God, love his neighbor, frequent the sacraments, and pray for the clergy, none of which require VII in any way.

Also, I  am not sure that anything said in the past by popes, about our obligation to "obey" them are fully applicable today. There is no parallel in the past to a world in which we get to know everything a pope says all day long. Surely it can't ALL be considered Church Teachings? What he says to some guy in a crowd, or in a homily in Sta. Marta, these are things average Joe had no access to and no business knowing in the past. In the past, all average Joe Catholic needed to know was exactly the same as today: Love God, love neighbor, frequent the sacraments,etc. No layman in the past had any business knowing anything that went on in Councils or in the lives of popes. And Pope Francis himself specifically makes ZERO statements about the Faith and Morals in any manner outside of the rhetoric common to homiletics and oratory in general, i.e. he avoids anything doctrinal like the plague. Most of his statements are about very general ideas related to charity, or are about things outside the fields of Faith and Morals, like financial speculation, or taxation, or what he thinks about large corporations.
Reply
#66
I kind of hope the NO won't be abrogated soon. It's useful for those Catholics who want to be Protestants, either in how they worship or in what they believe. It is leading to an informal, drawn out schism. If it were abrogated, then the tinkerers would then have the old rite to focus on. Anything not expressly forbidden, but which was crowd-pleasing, would be done.

Also, churchmen seem not to want to antagonise the faithful by giving them the hard facts of Christianity from the pulpit. Coupled with bad teaching in schools, Catholics who regularly break one or more of the commandments and still receive Communion do not hear anything to disturb their comfort.

The Modernist project is to update religion. Proponents do not understand that, in doing so, they undermine it. If  the tradition was wrong, then how do we know the update is right? The suspicion arises in that background that, because it is new, that it is not right. How come we, the latest generation, are holier than 20 previous ones?

Update a 'timeless' religion? Preposterous! The Orthodox get that, or at least they tread very carefully, I think if only because they know that if they mess up, their followers will decamp to a rival Orthodox church.

People badly want an easy-going religion, not realising that's a contradiction. Christ's sayings are hard. The Saints didn't become saints by taking it easy.

Reply
#67
There are plenty within the Orthodox camp that are itching for their own "aggiornamento" and have been for a long time. The calender issue was the first win for Orthodox modernists and ecumenists, their own first major divide and conquer moment. Overall the Orthodox Church has historically been inward looking and jealous to guard tradition simply in order to hold on and keep their faith in the midst of ottoman and communist oppression and the isolation it brought. They also never had some central authority that could impose evil reforms from the top down the way us Catholics had and still have. Paradoxically the papacy and the unquestioning obedience to papal authority actually made the post conciliar chaos rather easy to enforce; if the pope says it we must do it; it MUST be for the good of the Church. At least that's what was thought. Paul VI used his authority to foist evil on Catholics everywhere and this loyalty and obedience to the pope and the bishops ran so deep most Catholics, even those formed before the Council, surrendered their faith, their rituals, their churches, their statutes and their understanding of Catholicism in a mere decade or more. The revolutionaries knew what they were doing and they did it well. The Orthodox don't have that central authority that can impose dubious reforms from on high. If any revolution is to occur. One should by now be able to see why the Orthodox are deeply skeptical of any reunion with Rome, even those that might otherwise be more friendly. Would union with Rome mean the papally sanctioned banalization and aggiornamento of their own liturgy and traditions? It didn't pass unnoticed to me that when Benedict XVI wrote Summorum Pontificum the Patriarch of Moscow took notice and said that if anything THAT document was good for Catholic/Orthodox ecumenism.
Reply
#68
Everything is just so sad, I think I am going to lose my faith.
Reply
#69
(05-18-2014, 07:17 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: There are plenty within the Orthodox camp that are itching for their own "aggiornamento" and have been for a long time. The calender issue was the first win for Orthodox modernists and ecumenists, their own first major divide and conquer moment.

I fail to see how wanting the calendar to align with the sun and moon is "modernist". 
Reply
#70
The Orthodox followed the Julian calender for millenia. Many amongst the Orthodox thought the new calender was simply in the name of a dubious ecumenism. The Julian Calender is and was a big deal to the Orthodox, at least some. Perhaps in and of itself the new calender is not "modernist" but amongst many Orthodox it was seen as a capitulation to what they see as an apostate West in the name of ecumenism. It was divisive because it now drove a wedge between their own, between those who followed the new and those that followed the old. Russians were so attached to the Julian calender that even the civil year prior to the revolution was reckoned by it. The Julian Calender is a big deal to quite a lot of Orthodox.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)