Francis intends to go all the way
#21
(11-07-2014, 05:16 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(11-07-2014, 01:51 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: (snip) There is really no going back with the liturgy, no ending of the Novus Ordo. (snip)

We who love the pre Conciliar liturgy ought to accept that we are a minority and will probably always remain a minority in being attached to rites and rituals that were abandoned wholesale (other than as a begrudging indult)by Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis and the majority of the episcopate for the last half century. Sure we are given an option of holding to he older norms if we are attached to them but that is it. We should accept it. (snip)

I absolutely disagree. I think, ultimately, the traditional Mass will prevail and the NO will die. I think this will happen, in large part, due to sheer numbers:  trads have lots of kids; neo-cons and progressives don't, with some outliers among the neo-cons. Even now, it is trad seminaries that are full while NO seminaries languish, and even among the NO seminaries, the young priestlings (ha) are orthodox and very supportive of the TLM.

But even if that were not the case, I don't think we should at all accept the idea of the NO being around forever, with, maybe, if we're lucky, the TLM still being offered here or there, sometimes, once in a while, in the ghetto parishes, maybe every other Sunday of any month with the letter J in its name. Trads need to FIGHT and KEEP fighting. Tradvert people. Send them to FE. Get some FE bumper stickers. Make up "Why the TLM?" flyers and hand them out to the folks after NO Masses -- and include the address and Mass times of the closest TLM. Invite friends and family to attend TLMs with you. Get parishes that don't have the TLM to offer the trad Mass. Etc. People really have to get inspired, man.


I completely agree with Vox. The TLM is the Mass and has been around for over a millennia, they've tried to kill it but cannot. 

One of two things will happen either we are in the End Times or a deeply diabolical time in history and this period will be remember as a time of one of the greatest heresies in the history of the Church.
Reply
#22
(11-07-2014, 05:22 PM)Papist Wrote:
(11-06-2014, 06:07 PM)Silouan Wrote:
(11-06-2014, 02:23 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: If this is what the Pope indeed has in mind then I don't know what else to think except that he has taken the place of God... and we all know what that means.



Many Catholics replaced God with the pope a very long time ago. Until that is fixed you'll continue to be subject to the whims of men.  :shrug:

Well, if that isn't that most nonsensical thing I've read in while




You haven't been around here much then have you?  :LOL:
Reply
#23
To not have obedience to the  pope sounds just wrong. What happened to the people of Israel when they rejected the Davidic kings? What happened to the people who revolted against Moses? It's not that the pope is God; it's that God seems to place great importance on obedience, even if the person in authority is an ass.

What terrible times we live in when to be a loyal Catholic is to be contra Peter.
Reply
#24
(11-08-2014, 01:20 AM)ThomasTheDoubter Wrote: To not have obedience to the  pope sounds just wrong. What happened to the people of Israel when they rejected the Davidic kings? What happened to the people who revolted against Moses? It's not that the pope is God; it's that God seems to place great importance on obedience, even if the person in authority is an ass.

What terrible times we live in when to be a loyal Catholic is to be contra Peter.

I don't think there's even one king of Israel that was not confronted by some prophet or priest. So clearly obedience is not blindly following someone into error.
And of course, to confront the king (or the pope), is not the same as to usurp the kingdom—again, I think this is some vestige of the modern version of monarchy where the king is the law. I'm not sure, but I think even in Elijah vs. Ahab, Elijah never asked Ahab to stop being king or tried to establish another king (though I'm not sure, its being a long time since I read that), though the confrontation was fierce.
Reply
#25
I wish we had a good pope. It's hard not to feel like a schismatic these days, and if Francis keeps going the way he is there will be a terrible schism.
Reply
#26
(11-08-2014, 01:54 AM)ThomasTheDoubter Wrote: if Francis keeps going the way he is there will be a terrible schism.
I don't think so, cobber.

There may be a great sorting of wheat and chaff, but ultimately the disciples huddled fearfully in the Room will prevail.
Reply
#27
(11-08-2014, 01:54 AM)ThomasTheDoubter Wrote: I wish we had a good pope. It's hard not to feel like a schismatic these days, and if Francis keeps going the way he is there will be a terrible schism.

Time to face facts. We do not have a good pope. It more and more appears we don't even have a Catholic one. Even Cardinal Burke--I suggest true Catholics follow his lead into the future--is saying there is a great schism coming if next fall's synod goes the way it appears it might, and the way it appears Francis wants it to go. If he does support heresy such as was in the interim report in the final version next year, he will not only NOT be infallible in doing so, he will not longer be Catholic or pope.
Reply
#28
(11-08-2014, 10:51 PM)tradprof Wrote: he will not only NOT be infallible in doing so, he will not longer be Catholic or pope.
I quite agree that no pope can "infallibly" declare a novelty or nonsense to be a part of the "deposit of Faith". The Faith is already essentially clearly defined... Apostolic.

However, I have no divinely appointed jurisdiction to infallibly declare anyone, whether they be popish things or wild men from the jungle, as reprobates to be roasted in Hell forever.

Remember the parable of the talents. The "talents" that Frank got may not have been "legal tender". I say leave it to God to decide if Frank wasted his talents or if he was not given any.

Otherwise, we can all be certain that the Faith is not subject to the political whims of the popish fellow.
Reply
#29
I don't think Pope Francis is talking about doctrinal changes but making moves that would strip the Roman Curia of much of its power over bishops. He stated long ago in the interview with America magazine that complaints about someone's orthodoxy ought to be handled on the "local level". I think he would decentralize in such a way that  a future pope would have a very hard time changing things. I totally disagree with Francis' approach myself but I don't think changing doctrine is the goal. But if pastoral practices become too liberalized then the doctrine may remain but of what relevance is it?
Chaos will be the more likely outcome. A reset to the seventies.

C.
Reply
#30
(11-09-2014, 03:38 AM)Cetil Wrote: I totally disagree with Francis' approach myself but I don't think changing doctrine is the goal. But if pastoral practices become too liberalized then the doctrine may remain but of what relevance is it?
Chaos will be the more likely outcome. A reset to the seventies. C.
Hmm. I don't know where you're coming from, Cetil.

There is no possibility that "doctrine" (the Faith) can change anywhere, or anyhow.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)