Posted on 01/02/2005 1:59:29 PM PST by wagglebee
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the chief architect of Pope John Paul II's traditionalist moral policy, has long been a bugaboo for liberal Catholics. But they had stopped worrying that the German might one day ascend to St. Peter's throne. His hard-line views and blunt approach had earned him the epithet of panzerkardinal and too many enemies. Well, their worrying may now resume. Sources in Rome tell TIME that Ratzinger has re-emerged as the top papal candidate within the Vatican hierarchy, joining other front runners such as Dionigi Tettamanzi of Milan and Claudio Hummes of Sao Paolo. "The Ratzinger solution is definitely on," said a well-placed Vatican insider.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
You must have been to some churches around here.
The Old Catholics regarded themselves as traditionalists, also.
They rejected papal infallibility. We reject not a single dogma of faith. No comparison. And I don't accept that the SSPX is schismatic. It does not reject the papacy. That is the Pope's idea--but it's strictly unilateral. The last I heard, he can't make somebody something he isn't. He can't claim someone is a schismatic who is not a schismatic. Oh, sure, he can say it--and even deal out some punishment. But the sanction would be legal only. It would have no moral validity.
You are splitting hairs. You reject the authority of the papacy. On this point your postion and that of the Greeks is the same.
Your depiction of the pope's universalism is untruthful.
Here's what Dominus Iesus says: " Not infrequently it is proposed that theology should avoid the use of terms like “unicity”, “universality”, and “absoluteness”, which give the impression of excessive emphasis on the significance and value of the salvific event of Jesus Christ in relation to other religions. In reality, however, such language is simply being faithful to revelation, since it represents a development of the sources of the faith themselves. "
“It is precisely this uniqueness of Christ which gives him an absolute and universal significance whereby, while belonging to history, he remains history's centre and goal: ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end' (Rev 22:13)”.
Above all else, it must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door”.
Nonsense. I reject nothing. I don't much admire this pope, but I don't reject him or his authority. By the same token, I don't think his authority extends to the destruction of the Church or of Tradition itself. It is perfectly legitimate to resist a pope who is destructive of the faith or who abuses his office in some way. And by the way--my family and I pray the Rosary daily--for the Pope.
When you can show me in the GIRM or the Code of Canon Law where Aztec dancers praying to false gods is a legitimate part of the Novus Ordo, I'll consider your points as valid. Until then, you're just slandering the Body of Christ.
Yes you do. First, you have rejected the indult mass that is available to you.
Second, you reject objective truth by making this statement:
"It is perfectly legitimate to resist a pope who is destructive of the faith or who abuses his office in some way.
What specific order has the pope made that could be construed as denying one doctrine of the faith? What is it you think he has destroyed? How has he abused his office?
Dominus Jesus was an exercise in back-tracking--which is why it created such a stir. You guys drive me nuts. You come up with nice quotes. But for every nice quote, I can cite ten that make the contrary point. Here are a few:
“The finite, human categories of time and space are almost completely secondary. All men, from the beginning of the world until its end, have been redeemed by Christ and his cross.” (Sign of Contradiction, 1979)
“Christians and Muslims...Both of us believe in one God...and we know that after the Resurrection he will be satisfied with us, and we know that we will be satisfied with him.” (Invitation to Joy, 1996)
“The Redemption even brings salvation to all, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever through this mystery.” (Redemptoris Missio, 1990)
First, whether I go to an Indult Mass or the SSPX Mass has absolutely nothing to do with obedience or schism or heresy or any of the other negatives you like to charge me with. In other words, it's hardly anybody's business except for me and my confessor.
Second, the order not to consecrate was a death sentence for the traditional Mass. Without bishops to ordain traditional priests, Catholic tradition would eventually have disappeared. It was either disobey the Pope, or watch the ancient Mass--and with it countless souls--go down the drain.
The Pope's refusal to give a mandate--when he had given the mandate to countless perverts and apostates around the globe--was for one reason only--to starve the Traditionalist Movement of priests, to nip the movement in the bud and destroy Traditional Catholicism. He was properly resisted. No Pope has the authority to destroy Tradition--which he is mandated to protect.
Hey, inculturation is the latest thing. Improvisation is the name of the game. Kiss a Koran lately?
May I say I love your screenname!
"When you can show me in the GIRM or the Code of Canon Law where Aztec dancers praying to false gods is a legitimate part of the Novus Ordo, I'll consider your points as valid. Until then, you're just slandering the Body of Christ."
Let me see if I've got this straight. The Pope has Aztecs dancing to their false gods at a papal Mass just before he says the words of the Consecration and I'M the one who is slandering the Body of Christ?
“The Redemption even brings salvation to all, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever through this mystery.” (Redemptoris Missio, 1990)
The word "even" should actually be "event". Here it is in it's context:
In my first encyclical, in which I set forth the program of my Pontificate, I said that "the Church's fundamental function in every age, and particularly in ours, is to direct man's gaze, to point the awareness and experience of the whole of humanity toward the mystery of Christ."(4) The Church's universal mission is born of faith in Jesus Christ, as is stated in our Trinitarian profession of faith: "I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father.... For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man."(5) The redemption event brings salvation to all, "for each one is included in the mystery of the redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever through this mystery."(6) It is only in faith that the Church's mission can be understood and only in faith that it finds its basis. Nevertheless, also as a result of the changes which have taken place in modern times and the spread of new theological ideas, some people wonder: Is missionary work among non-Christians still relevant? Has it not been replaced by inter-religious dialogue? Is not human development an adequate goal of the Church's mission? Does not respect for conscience and for freedom exclude all efforts at conversion? Is it not possible to attain salvation in any religion? Why then should there be missionary activity? "No one comes to the Father, but by me" (Jn 14:6)
You might want to read the entire encyclical. A call to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ does not support your charge of universalism.
"Invitation to Joy" is papal pictorial with excerpts from speeches. It would be nice to see the actual quote in its context. I wouldn't trust your sources.
Ahem....that was before I knew his was a liberal!!!
Sign of Contradiction appears to be a Lenten retreat given in 1976 as Cardinal Wojtila to Pope Paul VI. Don't have time to get into it. Only references I saw googling were on sede websites. Maybe I'll still be interested tomorrow. 'night.
You know as well as I do that Eucharist Prayer I is NOT used except on very rare occasions in most parihes........it might as well be forbidden!
Most times on Prayer II is used
You know as well as I do that Eucharist Prayer I is NOT used except on very rare occasions in most parihes........it might as well be forbidden!
Most times on Prayer II is used
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.