Women to Pope: Can We Marry Our Priest Boyfriends! Pleeeeease?
#21
(05-20-2014, 07:56 PM)Silouan Wrote:
(05-20-2014, 12:18 PM)Drover Wrote: If it is a discipline as you say, then the Pope could also turn around and demand Celibacy for the Eastern Churches to unify with Western practice.


Trying to force Eastern Catholics to comply with Western practices has happened before.......


[Image: 200px-John_Ireland_(archbishop_of_Saint_Paul).jpg]

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR-JyWLznZl8kr25FW8MLC...WzZgH_R53X]

The Pope could also dissolve Roman priests' promises of celibacy, require priests to be married, and abrogate the traditional Mass, and you couldn't do anything about it. He has universal and immediate jurisdiction. Period. Tradition has no rights. Pope Pius IX wasn't far off when he (perhaps apocryphaly) declared, "Tradition? I am tradition."

If from a conservative Catholic perspective (ecclesia Dei or EWTN conservative), my assessment above is wrong, please explain how so, because I don't see any way around that conclusion... and honestly...
I'd like one.
Reply
#22
(05-20-2014, 10:32 PM)CounterRevolutionary Wrote: The Pope could also dissolve Roman priests' promises of celibacy, require priests to be married, and abrogate the traditional Mass, and you couldn't do anything about it. He has universal and immediate jurisdiction. Period. Tradition has no rights. Pope Pius IX wasn't far off when he (perhaps apocryphaly) declared, "Tradition? I am tradition."

If from a conservative Catholic perspective (ecclesia Dei or EWTN conservative), my assessment above is wrong, please explain how so, because I don't see any way around that conclusion... and honestly...
I'd like one.

This remains a problem. The Roman Church has spent a lot of time since Vatican I trying to mitigate the effects of that council's decrees, such as repeating the refrain that the Pope is the guardian of tradition, not its master; he's the visible principle of unity, etc. And that's well and good when the Pope behaves in an appropriate way, but there seems to be no recourse at all against a pontiff who acts in a tyrannical or otherwise disastrous way. Some trads say that the Pope doesn't have the authority to abrogate the "Mass of all time," but I can't see how this is so. If the externals of the liturgical rites belong to ecclesiastical law, then how is it that the Pope's authority is in any way limited?
Reply
#23
(05-20-2014, 11:00 PM)aquinas138 Wrote:
(05-20-2014, 10:32 PM)CounterRevolutionary Wrote: The Pope could also dissolve Roman priests' promises of celibacy, require priests to be married, and abrogate the traditional Mass, and you couldn't do anything about it. He has universal and immediate jurisdiction. Period. Tradition has no rights. Pope Pius IX wasn't far off when he (perhaps apocryphaly) declared, "Tradition? I am tradition."

If from a conservative Catholic perspective (ecclesia Dei or EWTN conservative), my assessment above is wrong, please explain how so, because I don't see any way around that conclusion... and honestly...
I'd like one.

This remains a problem. The Roman Church has spent a lot of time since Vatican I trying to mitigate the effects of that council's decrees, such as repeating the refrain that the Pope is the guardian of tradition, not its master; he's the visible principle of unity, etc. And that's well and good when the Pope behaves in an appropriate way, but there seems to be no recourse at all against a pontiff who acts in a tyrannical or otherwise disastrous way. Some trads say that the Pope doesn't have the authority to abrogate the "Mass of all time," but I can't see how this is so. If the externals of the liturgical rites belong to ecclesiastical law, then how is it that the Pope's authority is in any way limited?


Isn't this a problem with all human authority? I don't think it matters that much in what way one organizes a community, there is always that danger of power being transformed from good authority to tyranny lurking. The thing with the papacy is that when this happens there is less chance of fragmentation; I believe that the way the other churches deal with disagreement is, broadly, through rupture or division – sometimes in a drastic sense.
I don't know the Orthodoxes very well, but besides being more or less unified by Liturgy they are pretty fragmented. As a matter of fact, I was talking with a Lebanese Orthodox the other day, and he said (and this is an argument in favor of Orthodoxy) that because the Bishops don't agree in anything, nothing changes.
And of course, the Protestants are even in a worse state. They get their autocrats and the dissolution of their “tradition”, but their solution is simply to create a new church with a new power structure.

I think people (correctly) say that the power of the Pope is limited by Tradition and so on less because there are provisions on the Canon Law to deal with a bad Pope and more because of a fundamental metaphysical and existential belief – and let's be honest, good laws never stop a determinate tyrant.
Bad leaders have always existed in the Church, maybe we have to deal with them the way we deal with a secular authority: the Apostles always urged to obey, even the bad bosses.
Reply
#24
(05-20-2014, 11:43 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: I don't know the Orthodoxes very well, but besides being more or less unified by Liturgy they are pretty fragmented. As a matter of fact, I was talking with a Lebanese Orthodox the other day, and he said (and this is an argument in favor of Orthodoxy) that because the Bishops don't agree in anything, nothing changes.

I imagine most of the Catholics here on this forum would be pretty excited if there were fewer changes in their Church.  8-)
Reply
#25
Change is not going to solve the problem.  Only repentance and confession will help both these priests and these women.  These priests are being untrue to their vows of chastity.  They need to make a good confession and sin no more.  These women should also go and confess their sins, and sin no more.  Holy orders is a sacrament, just as matrimony is a sacrament.  Promises were made, and must be kept.



















Reply
#26
(05-20-2014, 11:43 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: I think people (correctly) say that the power of the Pope is limited by Tradition and so on less because there are provisions on the Canon Law to deal with a bad Pope and more because of a fundamental metaphysical and existential belief – and let's be honest, good laws never stop a determinate tyrant.
Bad leaders have always existed in the Church, maybe we have to deal with them the way we deal with a secular authority: the Apostles always urged to obey, even the bad bosses.

The pontificate of Paul VI puts the lie to the assertion that the Pope is limited by Tradition. That sounds nice to say, and perhaps he should be, but it isn't true.The Mass was changed. The Office was changed. Every Sacrament was changed. The minor orders were abolished. The Vulgate was set aside. Seminaries and convents began hemorrhaging. Countless traditions were abolished. Though the subsequent pontiffs never tire of extolling the "fruits" of Vatican II and its "liturgical renewal," no one can really offer a coherent description of what those fruits actually are. Sure, by means of mental gymnastics and sophistry we can convince ourselves that nothing "really" changed, just "mere" externals, but that is ultimately unsatisfying.
Reply
#27
Speculation against the Pope or Eastern Catholics and their Churchs was unwarranted on my part, 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
#28
(05-21-2014, 10:43 AM)aquinas138 Wrote:
(05-20-2014, 11:43 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: I think people (correctly) say that the power of the Pope is limited by Tradition and so on less because there are provisions on the Canon Law to deal with a bad Pope and more because of a fundamental metaphysical and existential belief – and let's be honest, good laws never stop a determinate tyrant.
Bad leaders have always existed in the Church, maybe we have to deal with them the way we deal with a secular authority: the Apostles always urged to obey, even the bad bosses.

The pontificate of Paul VI puts the lie to the assertion that the Pope is limited by Tradition. That sounds nice to say, and perhaps he should be, but it isn't true.The Mass was changed. The Office was changed. Every Sacrament was changed. The minor orders were abolished. The Vulgate was set aside. Seminaries and convents began hemorrhaging. Countless traditions were abolished. Though the subsequent pontiffs never tire of extolling the "fruits" of Vatican II and its "liturgical renewal," no one can really offer a coherent description of what those fruits actually are. Sure, by means of mental gymnastics and sophistry we can convince ourselves that nothing "really" changed, just "mere" externals, but that is ultimately unsatisfying.


Well, that's why I conceded the possibility of a bad Pope; what I was trying to defend was the office of the Pope, pointing that the problems we get with bad Popes are not absent (in the best scenario, at least in possibility) from other ways of organizing, with the downside that other problems, such as exceeding fragmentation, arises (not to speak of the problem of dealing with Scriptural and historical basis for the papacy).

I did not say a Pope cannot do damage, he can – but that's how the Lord chose things to be. He could have put Truth in such lofty heights that no human would have access, placing authority, discipline and so on in some abstract, invisible, construct (and this is the Gnostic temptation), but He rather build His Church in history, with human beings.
Like I said, I don't believe a Pope can completely destroy the Church (or the Mass, which is the apex of the Church) because I believe every Pope is super pious, but because Jesus Himself prayed for St. Peter, and for us and for His Church.
And really, Paul VI did some damage, but he did not destroy the Church (and I am of those that happen to think “externals” are of utter importance): we can still find the Mass in its fullness, etc. These are not easy times, really, but the Lord chose us to live today, so we have to deal with it.
Reply
#29
You know, most of these women are probably divorcees, widows, or had another traumatic experience that require pastoral help.  And they become attached to the priest because he is a good guy and there is such a shortage of those these days.  Gradually, the priest is worn down, especially considering the nature of most priests' life, loneliness.  Loneliness if the most powerful demon in the world today. This is why we need priests to live in common when possible.  That being said, I hope these priests realize the severity of their violation and repent (and the women too). 
Reply
#30
(05-21-2014, 10:43 AM)aquinas138 Wrote:
(05-20-2014, 11:43 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: I think people (correctly) say that the power of the Pope is limited by Tradition and so on less because there are provisions on the Canon Law to deal with a bad Pope and more because of a fundamental metaphysical and existential belief – and let's be honest, good laws never stop a determinate tyrant.
Bad leaders have always existed in the Church, maybe we have to deal with them the way we deal with a secular authority: the Apostles always urged to obey, even the bad bosses.

The pontificate of Paul VI puts the lie to the assertion that the Pope is limited by Tradition. That sounds nice to say, and perhaps he should be, but it isn't true.The Mass was changed. The Office was changed. Every Sacrament was changed. The minor orders were abolished. The Vulgate was set aside. Seminaries and convents began hemorrhaging. Countless traditions were abolished. Though the subsequent pontiffs never tire of extolling the "fruits" of Vatican II and its "liturgical renewal," no one can really offer a coherent description of what those fruits actually are. Sure, by means of mental gymnastics and sophistry we can convince ourselves that nothing "really" changed, just "mere" externals, but that is ultimately unsatisfying.

True, Paul VI's complete and utter disregard for tradition and his using his authority to jettison it certainly gives the impression that the Pope is not in any way bound by tradition but stands above it.  There is so little remaining of the traditions of Roman Catholicism after Paul VI and Vatican II that I do not really take offense when those outside the Church (who have no skin in the game) say that objectively speaking it looks like a different religion. John XXIII called a Council in order to update Roman Catholicism  and what followed was a takeover by modernist scholars and other experts who jettisoned the traditional schema and drafted the blueprint for a new religion to be used instead. Paul VI blessed their effort and went above and beyond the Council, using his authority to do what Aquinas138 mentioned above: set aside the Vulgate, create a Mass from scratch that had little to none of the prayers left speaking of a sacrifice,abolished the minor orders, change the forms of sacramental rites so that in some cases it is only context that seems to point to what is actually being conferred and the list goes on. After the Council the late Orthodox Father Seraphim Rose remarked that Paul VI wasn't the anti-Christ but he was perhaps a precursor, a tragic figure who, after the faith had died out had nothing left to offer but the empty gospel of social idealism.

Paul VI was a man that truly had no respect for Tradition at all; he trampled on it in the name of his authority. When I look at the Council along with the last several pontificates I am at times left wondering if the last 60 years or so is the greatest refutation of the necessity of the papacy in all of history. I'm honest about that too. If the Pope is so necessary than why was it not the Orthodox Church but the Roman Catholic Church under the power of the Popes that nearly wholesale abandoned it's traditions, it's rites, it's rituals, it's very mission itself? Why do I get the impression watching the modern Popes and the modern episcopate that none of them are interested in anything but the building up of a civilization of love and engaging in ecumenical lovefests?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)