Posted on 08/12/2014 3:09:02 PM PDT by TradicalRC
When Cardinal Bergoglio was elected pope in 2013, many traditional Catholics were wary. Recently, their pessimism is being justified as "The Francis Effect" makes itself felt across the world and in America, most notably in the Archdiocese of New York.
So-called "traditional" Catholics prefer to attend the Mass as it was celebrated before and during the Second Vatican Council (1962-5), before the liturgy was radically reformed in 1969.
The Tridentine Mass, which was the ordinary form of the Mass from 1570-1969, is said in Latin, often accompanied by Gregorian Chant and incense, and emphasizes the sacrificial aspect of the Mass.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
And who resigned to help make that possible?
“And who resigned to help make that possible?”
Are you saying that Benedict XVI resigned for the purpose of making that possible? That he wanted it to happen?
I’m saying that Benedict’s actions helped make it happen. I’m not making any judgments about his motives behind his resignation. Then again, if he followed Tradition, he never would have resigned in the first place.
“Im not making any judgments about his motives behind his resignation.”
But in the very next sentence you do make a judgment.
“Then again, if he followed Tradition, he never would have resigned in the first place.”
Even if I were to concede that his resignation was not Traditional, I would still have to contest the notion that one non-traditional action justifies an assertion that he does not follow Tradition.
I don’t concede that point, though. It has been several hundred years since a pope resigned, but there is still a place for resignation with Tradition. Before I could form a firm opinion regarding Benedict’s resignation I would need a lot more information and understanding.
I was dismayed, I admit, but perhaps there are things which would show the necessity for his resignation, if I knew or understood them.
Should have been, “...but there is still a place for resignation within Tradition.” Sorry.
And it has never been traditional for a pope to resign due to health issues.
“I said I didn’t make a judgment on his motives.”
Okay, okay, fine.
“And it has never been traditional for a pope to resign due to health issues.”
Now you’re stretching.
While it is not usual for popes to resign, it has happened before, and so is not contrary to tradition.
No, I’m not stretching. Take a good look at why these resignations happened and you’ll see resigning due to old age/infirmity is a novelty.
We can expect this to be a regular occurrence now though.
I guess we’re going to find out soon enough. I’m guessing that whatever changes occur they will be explained away as not “really” changes a la Vatican II. In true Modernist form, there will be change without being obvious about it. And slowly the Church will rot from within some more.
So, if I find a case or two of resignation due to old age or infirmity, what new condition will you insist on?
As I said earlier, one non-traditional act doesn’t justify the statement that a person does not follow tradition.
Sort of like young girl altar girls. This did not come down from Vatican II. Or the host in the hand. Or lay persons passing out the host. It also didn’t come down from Vatican II. Or the ridiculous hand-holding during the Our Father, and showing all types of disrespect at Mass, showing no reverence. This is the protestantism poison that has infested the Catholic Church in the past 30 odd years and it’s time that bishops put out firm guidance on how to act like Catholics during a Catholic Mass. It makes me sick.
LOL. You also once claimed non-Catholics don't need annulments from their Christian marriages to get re-married in the Catholic Church. I corrected you and you finally admitted your error.
A woman in Argentina complained to Pope Francis that her local priest would not give her Holy Communion because she had re-married without getting an annulment of her first marriage.
The Pope supposedly called this woman and told her that her situation was OK and she just needed to sneak around and find a different Catholic church where no one recognized her so she could receive Holy Communion.
The Vatican has admitted Pope Francis did call this woman.
The Vatican has refused to divulge the content of that phone conversation.
To this day, the Vatican has not denied the adulterous woman's version of the phone call.
I said I didn’t get an annulment and the reason I didn’t get an annulment is because I was never baptised so my marriage was not sacramental. I signed a form and that was it. I got no annulment.
As far as what Pope Francis said to the woman, you don’t know and I don’t know. No transcripts of it exists. But no matter what he said, it mean nothing. No doctrine has changed or will be changed because of what Francis might have said to a woman. End of story. You worry too much.
I was never talking about your own marriage and neither were you when you made your erroneous statement.
It's not just what what Francis said to a woman. It's also what Francis said on an airplane returning the World Yute day. It's what Francis said to Cardinal Kasper, "serene" "theology on the knees", as he applauded Kasper after Kasper made the argument for Holy Communion to adulterers in front of a synod of bishops.
The Catholic Church will survive Francis.
I’m glad you admit that Francis has not been a help for the Catholic Church.
My father in law was married in 1947. He was a Methodist and was married by a justice of the peace. He divorced his first wife who was also Methodist. In 1955 he was remarried to a Catholic in the Catholic Church. He was still a Methodist.
He didn’t get an annulment. There was a form the parish priest got him to sign stating he was not a Catholic and did not get married in a church. He died at the age of 80 still very much a Methodist.
But you won’t find such a thing.
As for just one thing, Benedict XVI has prayed with non-Catholics at non-Catholic services on various occasions. This is not traditional at all. In fact, it goes against Traditional Catholic teaching. So, yeah, not just one act.
Benedict XVI is not the Traditionalist many would like to believe he was.
“Benedict XVI is not the Traditionalist many would like to believe he was.”
That’s odd, because all his serious writings show that he is a Traditionalist.
What kind of nonsense are you trying to sell here?
Are you just trying to confuse the issue and make it harder for decent people to get a bead on Pope Francis?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.