"Apparently". I like that.
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?
From my point of view, however, I'm glad that you did include it, because it strikes right to the heart of the problem. "Apparently" -from the same root as the word "appear"- means that "it appears to us", which is exactly what all your posturings amount to. You've simply made your own personal call on how the Pope is running the Church and elevated it to the level of infallibility.
Furthermore, let's not minimize what's happening here with euphemisms which attempt to paint a picture of studied and sporadic dissent from certain papal actions.
I see no admiration nor praise from your quarter for anything which the Pope does or says. The contestation is universal and continual. In addition, it's not just this Pope. Traditionalists have rejected wholesale, pope after pope, after pope. In toto. Your words in no way convey the scale of Traditionalist rejection of JPII or any of his predecessors.
It's a little late for playing the "we're all reasonable people" card.
Others just attack the Traditional Catholics claiming they have no right to criticize anything that the pope says or does.
It's not a question of having a "right" to criticise the Pope. It's a question of whether it's wise to do so. There are two virtues which guard against it and they are generally lacking from Traditionalist apologetics.
a)humility
b)prudence
Most reasonable people have some sort of awareness of their rightful place within the Mystical Body. For me, this means being aware that the Pope has a certain charism proper to his position with which I-as a humble pew dweller and the misunderstood "spirit of Vatican II notwithstanding"-am not endowed. This leads naturally to a certain respect for the holder of the Petrine office and a certain reserve when it comes to second guessing the works and teachings of its holder. The former has its roots in humility, the second in prudence.
Much as I might like to think that my opinion on how to approach relations with the Orthodox or Protestant Churches carries as much value as that of JPII, it doesn't. I have received no indication from the Holy Spirit, other than access to a computer and keyboard, that my opinions about Church governance count for diddly squat.
As for the whining "everyone attacks us Traditionalists" line, spare me.
You and yours may elevate disrespect for the papacy into a lifestyle and nobody is allowed to call you on it? You may criticize the Pope but nobody may criticize you?
That's a little unrealistic but totally in keeping with the pride which permeates your entire movement.
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.
Whining is the national pastime for the traditional movement.
"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.
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?