Posted on 03/08/2005 10:25:54 AM PST by Viva Christo Rey
You told me how you see me, as proud and imprudent.
You've indicated that you have no intention of responding to arguments made by Traditional Catholics to defend your position, only that these arguments should not be made based on your misguided understanding of what is appropriate conduct of a Catholic lay person.
And, you've made wholesale mischaracterizations of the arguments put forth by Traditional Catholics.
I'm fairly certain that this thread will be shut down shortly given the direction it is going in, which is really the object of the game isn't it, to shut down all debate on the subject. Good job.
Still inventing your own doctrine I see.
"Certain papal charism" is supposed to be doctrinal proof of the de facto impeccability of the Pope.
Utterly silly.
I think the neos should drop the pretense that they know what they are talking about. They are more comfortable hiding behind poetic catch phrases and offering incense to Baal IF they are told to by the Pontiff.
Of course the neos not going to respond. That would require actual reasoned argument.
They only rely on invented doctrines and a re-ordering of the virtues. With Obedience (true or false, it doesn't matter) being on top above Justice and Charity.
But hey, That's what the new religion is all about.
Whining is the national pastime for the traditional movement.
OH sinkspur! Great argument. Were you on the debate team in school?
See, no reasoned response just slurs and insults from you.
"You and yours may elevate disrespect for the papacy into a lifestyle"
I am not a scholar, however I do tend to side with the traditionalists. We do not look for non-traditionalists to kick out of the Church or enjoy criticism of His Holiness and to imply that we do is extremist.
I would think that traditionalists are worried that modernists have turned the papacy into a lifestyle issue and that the trend is causing many problems withing the Church.
Your post is well put together and worded wonderfully. But the purpose here is rather mute. Is the purpose here to serve Lucifer, or the underlining meaning that is the antichrist?
I must say though, that everything you just wrote is not scripture, but it sure did sound neat. I give you an A+ for the narrative. However, bad quality. D-
Your post is well put together and worded wonderfully. But the purpose here is rather mute. Is the purpose here to serve Lucifer, or the underlining meaning that is the antichrist?
I must say though, that everything you just wrote is not scripture, but it sure did sound neat. I give you an A+ for the narrative. However, bad quality. D-
I did not write that. I copied it from the Lightworker.com website, with which I have a real problem.
Why insert this word? There's no doubt in the Traditionalist mind that the Pope has departed from Catholic teaching is there? It's all black and white isn't it?
Marshmallow... most of your comments apply to Sede-Vacantists... while there might be people like that... it's not unique to the Traditionalist Movement. Just look at Cardinals, bishops, priests, and 'faithful' who think the pope still needs to be more open!!! Can you believe that?
It's not all black or all white. However, it seems that this is your view of Traditionalist. There are some who accept the Indult and the Pope as legal and valid successor of St. Peter. However, a lot of the comments on some of the things the pope says and does, are not personal. They have a base on theology and discipline as exercised by the Church before Vatican II.
Just because someone is the pope, does not mean that he cannot be called on or criticized on what he does. If you want some examples, go to many popes of the middle ages, would you have been quiet or not criticized what they were doing or what they did??
Now, humility and prudence seem to have been broken by you, too. Remember that if you call criticizing an act against prudence and humility, you have committed an act against them because you are criticizing not only a person, but a movement that is supported by Catholic teaching, even if the pope doesnt agree with it. Just because the pope does something, does not mean that it will be alright. Popes can make mistakes, too. And many of them have.
I would like to see you dancing at a papal Mass, and see if you consider it respectful. Im not sure if you know, but the Mass is not a theatrical performance. And even though inculturation can happen, it is not supposed to be the way it is being done. Read the lamentations of some cardinals and some bishops of how the real implementations of Vat II have not happened. When did you hear of a pope kissing the Quaram? Im not sure if you agree or criticize this, but im sure that you would criticize the pope who threw on the ground a Torah given to him by the jew of Rome.
Kissing a book that denies the Trinity, or going to places were the True God is not worshipped is not a good example, and humility does not take away from the responsibility of pointing when somethings wrong. Especially in these cases, where, because it is the pope who is doing these things, people see it as something good and worthy of doing. This is why a bishop in Los Angeles allowed some buddhist monks to worship in one of the churches (or was it the bishop's church)?), but absolutely forbade the celebration of the Tidentine Mass. Even if you are against the Traditionalist Movement, if you, as you way, you think that Traditionalist "whine" or whatever else you want to say, being close and narrowed minded to not accept the Tridentine Mass, but accept all other stuff from other religions is an affront to God, the Church, Tradition, tradition, discipline, and common sense.
Remember, here, you are defending a pope, not the papacy. Also, popes will come and go, but Church teaching will stay. And a new pope may be more Traditionalist, will you criticize him if he tries to undo what this present pope has done? or if he complains and whines?
Are you part of Catholics for Action, or something like that?
Well, you havent said anything other protestants havent already said.
You shouldnt say that you believe in the Bible, because there are many versions, and unless your are a master of the GreeK language, have the original books of the Bible, and have read the entire New Testament, you still have a loooooong way to go... Remember that many people ahve translated the Bible, but they always have some inputs of their own.
Now, you have to be careful when you say Church, because Real Catholic teaching has a DIFFERENT definition of the word CHURCH and what it means to that of the protestant definition.
So, there have been people in the Church, leaders, servants, faithful, who have been greedy, lustful, imprudent, mercilessly, etc, but look at where protestants and orthodox came from: Luther.. guided by lust because he wanted to get married, and didnt want to keep his promise of celibacy. This led him to contradict himself. If you were to read what he wrote at the beginning of his movement, and also what he wrote much later and by the end of his life,... that will explain why there are thousands of protestants denominations.. AND why TODAY no protestants, INCLUDING Lutherans, bother to read what luther wrote and taught.
Look at Henry VIII, also guided by lust and greed, he killed hi wives, married 6 women, and created his own church just because the Pope didnt want to give him an annulment. The Orthodox, well, they were the first ones.., but even though some theological differences were involved, one of the main reasons why they separated, was that they wanted to have equal power to that of the Pope just because Constantine had moved the capital of Rome to Constantinople.
And indirectly, much later, what led to many other separations among the protestans was pride and confusion. They want to prove, again indirectly, that THEY KNOW what the Bible means, so if they dont agree with someone else, they will start a new sect, denomination, group, whatever they want to be called.
It is to be remembered, that WE HAVE NATURAL LAW written in our hearts, not divine inspiration to interprate the Bible. Although God may give us divine inspiration, not everyone will receive, or interprate it or carry it out as it should be. Remember that God chose 12 Apostles to teach out of the many who followed Him.. and God doesnt change... so today that same body, their successors, should be present today, because we are in need to receive the same teachings as much as people in the time of Jesus and the Apostles did. We are not any better.
I am not going to say whether the pope is a good man or not, but many times, even people with good intentions can make mistakes and very big errors. Also, bad people can go good things, too. Your saying "he's a good man" is based on today's meaning of good, meaning, accepting everything and everyone in every place, regardless of human and, even more, divine laws and duties.
Winning people over would not work, as soon as they know that there are some moral and faith-related laws and disciplines to follow, they will not let themselves be won over. People who accept, practice and defend abortion, homosexuality, etc., etc... wont let themselves be won over.
There is more to being a Christian than just being "good."
latinmass
True, sageb1!
The fear is that total respect for the Mass will be lost, and that in the future everything might be accepted. What can keep future popes from ordaning women or letting Bill Clinton say Mass with them, if the pope allows an anglican "bishop" to be present with him during Mass??
What do you think, marshmallow, is what has let to priests change the wording of some of the sacraments to the point of making them invalid? Even BAPTISM, which is the most simple of them all to confer?
ALso, bishops and priests, have encouraged Catholics to attend protestant services, when they know that what is going to be preached there wont be Catholic teaching? In the 1917 Code of Canon Law this was prohibited, why do you, marshmallow, think this was? Going against that canon with a new canon, without any real necessity, doesnt alarm you, especially if the changes came from the top of the hiararchy, not from the people??
latinmass
"Your saying "he's a good man" is based on today's meaning of good, meaning, accepting everything and everyone in every place, regardless of human and, even more, divine laws and duties."
It's called relativism.
Well, sinkspur, I would say that whining is more preferable than making a game out of the liturgy, the pastime of the modernists. I think it can be said that at the last judgement, the first one may not be punished as severely as the last one. Dont, you think so?
Latinmass1983
ok, it's good is has a name, but still.. it doesnt make it right, or at least not applicable to these posts. Some people might say Bill Clinton, and/or his wife, are good people... well are they?
latinmass
I have no idea, and neither do you.
I am familiar with all that you have mentioned - though the particular group is news to me. Not surpirsing though - as there is also a Lucis Trust (which was originally called the Lucifer Trust).
But one item is new to me: the "ark". What "ark"? I have to assume from your description that it is somewhat of a similar concept to the "ark of the covenant" in scripture - which contained sacred things. So.....what is this "ark", what is in it, and who (or what) is responsible for it?
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.