BREAKING: Pope Benedict XVI says Church is ‘on the verge of capsizing’
#11
(07-16-2017, 11:45 AM)JosefSilouan Wrote:
(07-16-2017, 08:19 AM)austenbosten Wrote: You think the monsters in the Church are going to be struck down and these keyboard warriors are going to be elevated like the "great Catholic monarch" TradCatKnight?  Nope, it's going to be some poor SOB like me and most everyone on here, who will not have a Mass to go to, or Sacraments to be obtained (good luck getting into Heaven, when you cannot get access to the Sacraments.  Oh sure we can kid ourselves that God will bend the rules...I'm sure going to feel comfortable about that if I'm breathing my last moments..."no Last Rites, no priest in sight, probably no Requiem Mass for my eternal soul...Oh well, things will look up."  Sorry as a former Protestant, been there, done that, got the I'm with Stupid Luther T-shirt.


You can get to heaven without access to the sacraments if you are baptized, have perfect contrition and a desire for the Sacrament of Confession. 

From "fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" by Ludwig Ott:

Quote:2. Extra-Sacramental Justification through Perfect Contrition 

a) Perfect contrition bestows the grace of justification on the mortal sinner even before the actual reception of the Sacrament of Penance. (Sent. fidei proxima.)

The teaching of Baius that charity can co-exist with grievous sin (D I03I, 1070), and that perfect sorrow effects extra-sacramental justification only in the case of necessity and martyrdom, was rejected (D 1071).

b) Extra--sacramental justification is effected by perfect sorrow only when it is associated with the desire for the Sacrament (votum sacramenti). (De fide.)

By the votum sacramenti the subjective and the objective factor of the forgiveness of sins, the act of sorrow of the penitent and the Church's power of the keys are brought into connection with each other. The desire for the Sacrament is usually contained in perfect sorrow.

That's not the point!



Sorry to be blunt, but did you not get what I was ranting about?

Of course one can still be forgiven without physically receiving the Sacraments. The point is this, is that really what is desired. Heck is that even acceptable?

What am I'm saying, of course it's not acceptable, and you and everyone here knows that too. You get it, I get it, we all get it. The problem is, the men running the show, don't get it, or they do and just complain about it.

The whole point of my long winded jaded rant, is that I'm tired of hearing about Ratzinger and Burke, all it is, is a bunch of teasers for Trads. These men talk a good game, but where's the action? Where's the call for action?

Wake me up when someone calls a council to denounce Vatican 2, or the dumb dubia finally leads to a formal correction, or bishops begin to investigate the Papal Conclave of 2013.

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
[-] The following 1 user Likes austenbosten's post:
  • Bonaventure
Reply
#12
The key here is that the buck stops on the chair of St Peter, there is no court of appeal higher. The Pope  is supposed to be a guardian of the Faith ( which includes the prayers, gestures, signs, symbols and customs of our Patrimony) but in practice the popes have been the destroyers of all those things.  

Even if there were a Pope Burke or Pope Sarah or whatever, the precedent set by the papal tinkerers of the last 100 plus years along with papal infallibility and primacy of jurisdiction guarantees that any other pope in the future can practically do whatever they want. Tradition in the RCC has in practice become the plaything of the papacy and quite frankly I don't think there is any going back on it.
Walk before God in simplicity, and not in subtleties of the mind. Simplicity brings faith; but subtle and intricate speculations bring conceit; and conceit brings withdrawal from God. -Saint Isaac of Syria, Directions on Spiritual Training


"It is impossible in human terms to exaggerate the importance of being in a church or chapel before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. I very seldom repeat what I say. Let me repeat this sentence. It is impossible in human language to exaggerate the importance of being in a chapel or church before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. That sentence is the talisman of the highest sanctity. "Father John Hardon
Reply
#13
I was merely referring to this passage:

Quote:good luck getting into Heaven, when you cannot get access to the Sacraments.  Oh sure we can kid ourselves that God will bend the rules...

It seems to imply that God would have to bend the rules to save us if we are deprived from the sacraments without our own fault. This is not the case.
"Cor Jesu Rex Et Centrum Omnium Cordium, miserére nobis "

“To pray is to shed blood.” - Silouan the Athonite
Reply
#14
(07-16-2017, 04:38 PM)JosefSilouan Wrote: I was merely referring to this passage:

Quote:good luck getting into Heaven, when you cannot get access to the Sacraments.  Oh sure we can kid ourselves that God will bend the rules...

It seems to imply that God would have to bend the rules to save us if we are deprived from the sacraments without our own fault. This is not the case.

Well I wasn't attempting to give a theological lecture.  Yes, God will not punish us for elements beyond our control. That is not the point, the point is the church is on fire, and people thinking that God will just protect the building as the tongues of flames lick the rafters and the paint is melting and the roof is caving in. A lot of trads talk a good game about the need for chastisement...as if they would somehow escape the punishment. That was the point.
Reply
#15
My but I read some very heavy words here. As some of you know, my speciality is centred around that 1616 anti-Copernican decree of Pope Paul V. I have studied the theological history of this papal decree and it has taught me one of the greatest lessens about popes in my 75 years as as Roman Catholic.

Different popes have defended it infallibility and others have 'avoided and ignored' its infallibility. Indeed the first attacks on the dogma of infallibility came about as as result of the history of the 1616 decree. God knows how many refused to accept this dogma because of the fact they believed the 1616 infallible decree was proven wrong and treated accordingly by popes from 1741 at least and from 1835 absolutely. Now one would think that this rejection of infallibility would have been met by Rome and explained, given souls were at risk here. Not a word.
Even in our day, Hans Kung, who based his rejection of infallibility on the 1616 decree being proven wrong, has I hear been invited to discuss the matter with Pope Francis.

After my study, I reject Formerbuddhist's opinion that papal infallibility is not as defined in 1870. We have all read pages of instructions etc., but I have followed the facts. They are simple. Popes cannot get matters of faith and morals wrong when teaching officially. But outside of those papal decreed defining matters, popes can and DO get things wrong. The history of that 1616 decree proved to me how God will not allow any official definition to be officially challenged, even though popes from 1741 most probably believed the 1616 definition was proven wrong. He will allow any number of unofficial challenges, but the decree remained immune from all official challenges to its truth.

As regards the OP's question, popes are responsible for the 'fruits' of the Church. I have reached the stage, like many on these trad Catholic forums, to take popes since Pius XII as rersponsible for the situalion today. I too almost laughed at all the great 'renewals' the Modernists tried to lift their fgailures with. I remember JPII's great millenium squib. I have read of Ratzingers Modernist takeover at Vatican II and his rise to Pope 'the Great Traditionalist.' He brought the theology of the Church to the gutter and then warned us all about the demise of the Church as though it was our fault.

Funny isn't it, that popes since when after Fatima, Our Lady told the world the only way to save something was to concentrate Russia as instructed by her. How many billion souls have been lost since then? Yet not one did that. So when I hear popes, or ex-popes telling us what is hap[pening and telling us what to do I  wonder did NO ONE tell them about Our Lady's solution.

And God forgive me if I offended God anywhere in this post.
Reply
#16
Solid post, Cassini.

I can't take seriously any idea that these popes of the last half century have had concern for the salvation of souls.

Concern for the legacy of  Vatican II letting the World in?

Sure. Great job, mission accomplished, nearly everyone is damned or headed there.

John XXIII waived off the "prophets of doom" and gambled with billions of souls.

He was dead wrong.

Paul VI gambled with billions of souls on his new "human liturgy of man" and thought it was worth it.

Dead wrong.

JP II thought with his charisma and "World Youth Day" extravaganzas that he could persuade us that winter was springtime.

Wrong.

Benedict thought he could square circles to save the Council and said the Catholic Church was wrong about Galileo and modernity and therefore Vatican II was initiated to save the day.

Wrong.

Francis? Francis Just. Doesn't. Care.

Cruelty.
[-] The following 1 user Likes BC's post:
  • cassini
Reply
#17
(07-16-2017, 08:19 AM)austenbosten Wrote:
(07-16-2017, 07:20 AM)Roger Buck Wrote:
(07-15-2017, 11:19 PM)austenbosten Wrote: Whoopde freakin' do.

Are we going to lose our stuff when a bishop responds rhetorically to a question of crisis of Faith with the proverbial "does a bear crap in the woods?"

Well, this does seem to me unprecedented for our great Pope Emeritus. It is hard not to read this as a direct criticism of the Pope ...! It will certainly be read like that, in any event, and Benedict XVI was certainly conscious that it would. He is no idiot. 

And the words capsizing are very ominous.

Personally this seems quite significant to me, indeed.

So I will repeat myself: Whoa.

!!!RANT ALERT!!!


I guess I've seen so many of my fellow Catholic brothers and sisters clearly talk about the crisis in the Church that has been going on for the last century; to me when I read these words, I cannot help but be jaded and cynical.  "Thanks for finally deciding to get with the program Your Excellency. Too bad that you were never in a position to try and pilot the ship away from the tsunami...oh wait!"

Also it's not unprecedented. He has spoken up before despite saying that he was going to be "hidden" from the world during retirement. I don't see anything new here or shocking.  Frankly Ratzinger does not do anything to help the Church, he is part of the problem. He acts schizophrenic in regards to the Papacy. He happily abdicated according to him, but he will not give up the white cassock, nor the name of his monarchy. He also is not going gently into that night, as he said before. I think it's dangerous and schismatic. Francis is pope, whether we like it or not...the man is now Pope, and Benedict lurks in the shadows like some schismatic gargoyle, just waiting to step up and say "My bad!"...I wonder how many Catholics would flip overnight to side with Benedict over Francis.


I'm reading some comments on OnePeterFive, that both Benedict and St John Paul II knew the crisis was so deep that nothing could be done, except let the whole thing collapse and tell others to pray. Sorry but as a Millennial, my generation had to suffer so much because of the sins of the father...I cannot help but be simply bristled and angry at the inaction.  Lobs some heads off, use the Swiss Guard to simply execute anyone you think is wicked homo-Modernist...yeah a literal purge.

If it's that bad, why wouldn't you do everything in your power to clean up?  You let it just go up in flames?
"The house is on fire, oh gee we could try using the water buckets, or the baking soda, or the blankets...there's some TNT here.....nah...let's just let the whole thing burn up and leave the mess for the next guy to clean up."

I'm sorry but I'm tired of Ratzinger's publications and people reading into them as some sort of BBC message in Occupied France. I'm tired of lazy, inept, intellectual Catholics who want to just let the Bride continue to be raped and beaten to death by the enemies of Christ, because they want some sort of chastisement...who suffers and who benefits?

You think the monsters in the Church are going to be struck down and these keyboard warriors are going to be elevated like the "great Catholic monarch" TradCatKnight?  Nope, it's going to be some poor SOB like me and most everyone on here, who will not have a Mass to go to, or Sacraments to be obtained (good luck getting into Heaven, when you cannot get access to the Sacraments.  Oh sure we can kid ourselves that God will bend the rules...I'm sure going to feel comfortable about that if I'm breathing my last moments..."no Last Rites, no priest in sight, probably no Requiem Mass for my eternal soul...Oh well, things will look up."  Sorry as a former Protestant, been there, done that, got the I'm with Stupid Luther T-shirt.


Roger this is my general rant, shaking my fist in the sky, please do not take any of this as criticism towards you my friend.

Austenbosten, thank you for the last kindness : - )

I certainly hear your agony, which I share, about the horrific state of the Church under Benedict XVI, but lack time right now to respond to many points you make which do contain, I think, a great deal of painful truth.

However, I will say that I really do stand by my word "unprecedented". I can't think of anything like this in four years. There have been very small things like calling Cardinals Burke and Pell, if I recall correctly, "great".

But this goes much, much, MUCH further. It really does read like a direct comment on Pope Francis, as JosefSiloan pointed out:

(07-16-2017, 10:09 AM)JosefSilouan Wrote: I think the following passage from Benedict's message is even more significant:

Quote:"The Church stands in particularly pressing need of convincing shepherds who can resist the dictatorship of the spirit of the age and who live and think the faith with determination," 

Just think about it: whom or what did the person these words are said about just resist publicly?

Whatever or whomever Cdl. Meisner resisted, Benedict equated him/it with the "Dictatorship of the spirit of the age".


I am agreed.

Honestly, it appears to be as close to a direct attack as one ever makes in "Vatican diplomatese" - or at least Benedict XVI had to know it would be read like that. I ask myself why is he doing this NOW, after all these years of almost complete silence?

The more I think about it, the more struck I am.
Click to see at Amazon
[Image: 0.png]


See All my Three Books here at Amazon: viewauthor.at/RogerBuck

My YouTube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/c/RogerBuck
Reply
#18
Anyone read Ann Barnhardt's latest post from yesterday?  A bit tongue-and-cheek, but I believe it gets to the heart of what austenbosten was ranting about.
Reply
#19
I've pretty much lost nearly all my respect for the papacy, cardinals, bishops, priests, etc. who are either supporters of sodomy or are sodomites themselves; more interested in marxist/liberal politics/social justice/etc. than administering the sacraments; i could go on and on but I'll stop.

Can't type anymore anyway.
Reply
#20
(07-17-2017, 11:31 AM)Roger Buck Wrote: I am agreed.

Honestly, it appears to be as close to a direct attack as one ever makes in "Vatican diplomatese" - or at least Benedict XVI had to know it would be read like that. I ask myself why is he doing this NOW, after all these years of almost complete silence?

The more I think about it, the more struck I am.

What do you suppose this means? Is there anything good to come out of this other than a possible dangerous schism?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)