Francis ridicules "traditionalists" in final "Sin-od" speech
#11
Unfortunately "I do not think that means what u think it means" comes to mind when I read the bit about Traditionalist. I wish I knew them so just like Pope Francis I could oppose them. Sadly I fear he opposes a ghost a shadow a caricature of a rumor that he thinks looms while the real enemy walks freely His halls.
Reply
#12
(10-18-2014, 07:43 PM)Leonhard Wrote: I live in Denmark.

Did you read his speech? If not I'm not sure exactly what this post is addressed at. Geremia said that the pope ridiculed traditionalists, I pointed out that he didn't, or even if you say he did that did he didn't go solely against traditionalists.

Honestly it looks like fair chastisement.

Secondly I derided Geremia's mocking of the synod. Whether we like it or not, its an ugly slugfest full of arguments and its been like that since the apostles disagreed with eachother. However whatever they decide, wise or not, will carry authority. Calling it a 'Sin-od' is just Geremia broadcasting that he doesn't think half of the bishops there are validly ordained, or that Francis is the pope.

But help me then, how was Pope Francis specifically derogatory towards traditionalists?

To me it seems he's rather penduling to satisfy both sides, and equally chastise them.

Denmark?  Wow, fascinating.

How are things there?  What is the situation of the Church there?  How about starting a thread giving us here in the U.S. the view from that part of the world?  I would enjoy hearing about that.

The point regarding "traditionalists" is that even using the word is improper.  By definition, ALL Catholics should be "traditionalists."  The Faith has been handed down to us, and it's our job to hold fast to it.  That's being a "traditionalist."

Is the pope not a "traditionalist"?  If not, what is he?

Since when did "traditionalism" become an "extreme"?  Since when is it the duty of a pope to chastise people for being "traditionalists"?

Who is he speaking of in the below paragraph?  Cardinal Burke?  The African prelates?  Who? 

Who is guilty of "hostile inflexibility" that does not allow oneself to be "surprised by God"?  What in the world does that mean anyway, to be "surprised by God"?  In what manner are we supposed to be "surprised by God"?

Pope's words:  One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – “traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals.

Those of us who were born before the latest ecumenical council were never referred to as "traditionalists" until after the council.  We were just Catholics.  And if we haven't changed anything, then that's what we remain:  Catholics.

The pope's words give the impression that his views are some sort of middle way between "traditionalists" and the others, but actions speak louder than words.  This pope has been influenced by the Charismatic movement, a movement whose roots are in Protestantism.  The idea of a Catholic prelate kneeling down before a Protestant "clergyman" to receive a blessing is absurd.

The fact of the matter is that the pope creates "traditionalist bogeymen" so as to be able to criticize the praxis of millions of faithful Catholics because he has modern tendencies, which "traditionalism" stands opposed to.

The comparison of this synod to disagreements among the apostles is not apropos.

What has been proposed by many cardinals and bishops, in the pope's presence, is heresy.  Pure and simple.  That's why Cardinal Burke stated that some of the topics should not even be discussed, as the issue is closed.  To give Holy Communion to divorced and remarried Catholics is contrary to the teaching/praxis of the Church, and the prohibition is based on the words of our very Savior Himself.

Yet, the pope "chastises" "traditionalists" for being narrow-minded (not a sin) but says nothing about the blatant heresy called for by prelates in his very presence. 

The two positions are not equal, and to treat them as if they are is disingenuous at best.

Reply
#13
(10-18-2014, 08:11 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: In his speech he was distinguishing two opposite views, two extremes, so to speak. On that basis he implies that the best way, the orthodox way, is in the Middle.  In one paragraph he speaks of one extreme of being to strict with rules, this is the error of traditionalists. On the next paragraph he speaks of the other extreme (that is motivated by good intentions), of superficial mercy, this is the error of the liberals.

I don't think he's wrong with this. I just think unfortunate that he used traditionalists to describe the first group (though there might be traditionalists like that).

The pope fabricates a false dichotomy.

"Traditionalism" is not an "extreme."  It's not sinful.  It's merely holding fast to the Catholic Faith as has been handed down to us.

Where does the pope think "the rules" come from?  Don't they come from the Church?  Aren't they in place for our salvation?  Since when are Catholics not supposed to be "strict with rules"?  Exactly which rules are we not supposed to be strict with?

As opposed to "traditionalists," you have the other side.  However, the other side's views are heretical, as they contradict the very words of Jesus Christ.
Reply
#14
The middle ground can always shift slowly as more people accept it as the new standard. Gradualism, not in leaps.

I think he's trying to show that one side of the Church are Pharisees and the other Saducees and that we must be in the middle to be Christ's disciples. Like politicis, people must be moderate. I think it's a false comparison, as if following what the Church has always taught robs you of grace.
Reply
#15
(10-18-2014, 09:32 PM)ThomasTheDoubter Wrote: The middle ground can always shift slowly as more people accept it as the new standard. Gradualism, not in leaps.

Right. 

But the fact of the matter is that, in Catholicism, there is no such thing as "the middle ground."  There is only orthodoxy and heterodoxy.

Anything that is not orthodox falls into the latter category.  No other possibilities.

The proposals of Cardinal Kasper and many of the other prelates fall into the heterodoxy category.  They are not "middle grounders."  If the pope agrees with them, then neither is he.
Reply
#16
(10-18-2014, 09:42 PM)DJR Wrote:
(10-18-2014, 09:32 PM)ThomasTheDoubter Wrote: The middle ground can always shift slowly as more people accept it as the new standard. Gradualism, not in leaps.

Right. 

But the fact of the matter is that, in Catholicism, there is no such thing as "the middle ground."  There is only orthodoxy and heterodoxy.

Anything that is not orthodox falls into the latter category.  No other possibilities.

The proposals of Cardinal Kasper and many of the other prelates fall into the heterodoxy category.  They are not "middle grounders."  If the pope agrees with them, then neither is he.

I was listening to this:  [url]http://youtu.be/crNPL8kNPSU?list=UU3x3gDTqUYy_bFZWS-U_mZQ/url] essentially elaborates a little on the above the post. "Either true or is false, this is why we dont go to non catholic services  the worship is either true or false..
Reply
#17
(10-18-2014, 09:30 PM)DJR Wrote:
(10-18-2014, 08:11 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: In his speech he was distinguishing two opposite views, two extremes, so to speak. On that basis he implies that the best way, the orthodox way, is in the Middle.  In one paragraph he speaks of one extreme of being to strict with rules, this is the error of traditionalists. On the next paragraph he speaks of the other extreme (that is motivated by good intentions), of superficial mercy, this is the error of the liberals.

I don't think he's wrong with this. I just think unfortunate that he used traditionalists to describe the first group (though there might be traditionalists like that).

The pope fabricates a false dichotomy.

"Traditionalism" is not an "extreme."  It's not sinful.  It's merely holding fast to the Catholic Faith as has been handed down to us.

Where does the pope think "the rules" come from?  Don't they come from the Church?  Aren't they in place for our salvation?  Since when are Catholics not supposed to be "strict with rules"?  Exactly which rules are we not supposed to be strict with?

As opposed to "traditionalists," you have the other side.  However, the other side's views are heretical, as they contradict the very words of Jesus Christ.

Frankly, I understand what the Pope tried to do with those paragraphs. He is not opposing truth and error, so that no middle can be found. He's opposing two attitudes, attitudes that are deformations of a right way (have you not read, “I desire mercy not sacrifice”? Go and learn what this means).
By the way, Chesterton also speaks of heresy as extreme deformations of a via media. So, let's not get all excited because the Pope is not excited.

Again, I don't defend he using traditionalists as an example of this extreme.
It seems people don't read the whole thread before responding, so they come accusing without even knowing what the talk is about!
Reply
#18
(10-18-2014, 10:28 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote:
(10-18-2014, 09:30 PM)DJR Wrote:
(10-18-2014, 08:11 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: In his speech he was distinguishing two opposite views, two extremes, so to speak. On that basis he implies that the best way, the orthodox way, is in the Middle.  In one paragraph he speaks of one extreme of being to strict with rules, this is the error of traditionalists. On the next paragraph he speaks of the other extreme (that is motivated by good intentions), of superficial mercy, this is the error of the liberals.

I don't think he's wrong with this. I just think unfortunate that he used traditionalists to describe the first group (though there might be traditionalists like that).

The pope fabricates a false dichotomy.

"Traditionalism" is not an "extreme."  It's not sinful.  It's merely holding fast to the Catholic Faith as has been handed down to us.

Where does the pope think "the rules" come from?  Don't they come from the Church?  Aren't they in place for our salvation?  Since when are Catholics not supposed to be "strict with rules"?  Exactly which rules are we not supposed to be strict with?

As opposed to "traditionalists," you have the other side.  However, the other side's views are heretical, as they contradict the very words of Jesus Christ.

Frankly, I understand what the Pope tried to do with those paragraphs. He is not opposing truth and error, so that no middle can be found. He's opposing two attitudes, attitudes that are deformations of a right way (have you not read, “I desire mercy not sacrifice”? Go and learn what this means).
By the way, Chesterton also speaks of heresy as extreme deformations of a via media. So, let's not get all excited because the Pope is not excited.

Again, I don't defend he using traditionalists as an example of this extreme.
It seems people don't read the whole thread before responding, so they come accusing without even knowing what the talk is about!

But the synod didn't deal with "attitudes"; it dealt with teachings and praxis.  It wasn't talking about "attitudes," so if the pope is speaking about "attitudes," he missed the discussions going on all around him.

We're talking about orthodoxy versus heresy, and what he heard by many of his prelates was nothing but heresy.

Cardinal Burke said the pope is doing great damage to the Church.  An African cardinal basically said the same thing.  Do you agree with their assessments?

The pope's idea regarding "traditionalists" is a bogeyman on his part.  It doesn't exist.  How is traditionalism, as the pope views it, a deformation of "a via media"?

And who is he speaking about?  Let's name some names so we can get an idea of whose attitude we're supposed to avoid.

What he, and apparently others, don't seem to understand is that "traditionalism" IS the via media.  Other tendencies, like the pope's friends apparently propose, are actually deviations from the Faith, in other words, heresies.

This pope, when he was an archbishop, attended a Charismatic conference attended by Catholics and Protestants and, in full view of the assembled crowd, knelt down for the "blessing" of a Protestant "clergyman."

The idea that a Protestant has the ability to "bless" a Catholic, let alone a bishop, is an absolute deviation from the thinking of the Catholic Church. 

This pope's personal views are not a via media. 

And I had read the thread before I posted.
Reply
#19
"DJR" Wrote:which was at one time condemned by none other than Pope Paul VI (albeit he reversed himself later during the same year).
"Renatus Frater" Wrote:(you mean the merciful Kasper, who didn't hesitate to lie and throw a man's carreer under the bus, and basically just dismissed the Africans because they are orthodox? Yes, the liberals are such good people).
Could you guys elaborate? This sounds interesting.
Reply
#20
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

Quote:Argument to moderation (Latin: argumentum ad temperantiam; also known as [argument from] middle ground, false compromise, gray fallacy and the golden mean fallacy)[1] is an informal fallacy which asserts that the truth can be found as a compromise between two opposite positions. This fallacy's opposite is the false dilemma.

Vladimir Bukovsky points out that the middle ground between the Big Lie of Soviet propaganda and the truth is a lie, and one should not be looking for a middle ground between disinformation and information.[2] According to him, people from the Western pluralistic civilization are more prone to this fallacy because they are used to resolving problems by making compromises and accepting alternative interpretations, unlike Russians who are looking for the absolute truth.

An individual operating within the false compromise fallacy believes that the positions being considered represent extremes of a continuum of opinions, and that such extremes are always wrong, and the middle ground is always correct.[1] This is not always the case. Sometimes only X or Y is acceptable, with no middle ground possible. Additionally, the middle ground fallacy can create the rather illogical situation that the middle ground reached in the previous compromise now becomes the new extreme in the continuum of opinions; all one must do is present yet another, radically opposed position, and the middle-ground compromise will be forced closer to that position. In politics, this is part of the basis behind Overton window theory.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)