Posted on 08/08/2005 2:41:43 AM PDT by bornacatholic
excellent point, brother. While Matatics is no Tertullian - who is? - the similarities are, sadly, evident. That is what makes the situation so tragic. There is a LOT to admire in Mr. Matatics
I am aware of at least one traditionalist on here who is a Catechist for his Indult Community. One knows he doesn't teach rancor and disunity but truth in charity and hope.
Thanks, brother. I didn't know that.
Funny...My Mother died last year and the rural local Pauline Rite Pastor was sitting in our living room speaking with us and in responding to one question form my Uncle, the Pastor referenced "dark Night of the Soul."
I couldn't have been happier to hear that referenced
I don't throw the antisemitic label around--I use it very sparingly to define those people who have a *particular* and pronounced disgust for Jews that they can't seem to muster for anyone else.
Thanks, bornacatholic! I've always enjoyed your contributions as well! :)
Well said. If, per impossibile, the Novus Ordo were in fact invalid, we would only know because it would be proclaimed such by a future Holy Father, who convened a new Council and repudiated Paul VI ala Honorius. That's what I think sedes and others don't get about the Pope ceasing to be Pope by heresy--only the Church itself can in fact tell us that that is happened.
The Church alone has the authority to declare the invalidity or invalidity of the rite, not allegiance to our own personal interpretation of tradition. Leo XIII had the authority to declare Anglican orders null and void, yet somehow his successors lost that authority to a few American laymen who know better than the Holy See.
If what you are saying is true, then Jesus was the greatest conman who ever lived.
If the very sacrifice itself has been somehow penetrated by Satan, then the Church has fallen, contrary to the promise of Christ.
If what Peter binds on earth is not bound in heaven, if "he who hears you" does NOT "hear Me", then you've gone a long way to proving that salvation history is a sham.
Congratulations.
Yes, there's so much to admire about Mr. Luth-- ER, ER, I mean, Matatics.
Traditionalists who maintain their allegiance to the Holy Father are an inspiration and a wonderful example of humility and grace. I think they're going to see a portion of that good fruit during the pontificate of B16.
But for the radTrads - they will answer for the souls they've led away from Rome, just as Luther answered for it. The "I know better than the Church!" attitude is a road to perdition.
There have been Popes in past history who WERE NOT clergy.
The Papacy in the middle ages was being purchased left and right by the nobility, hence the reason for the CONCLAVE.
So -this proves two things-that many here do not know anything about church history, and just as many are fooled into thinking that any Pope, especially these so called Post Vatican II popes who refuse to take a Papal Oath that goes back to the 12th century just to prevent abuses as such that were taking place when the Demedici's and German nobility were purchasing the Papacy-how it is really THEIR post Vatican II church that has GONE BACK to the Middle ages!
So sad that noone really knows their faith and are like little lemmings being told to follow some corrupt Bishop like Levada and are supposed to obtain salvation.
Sad
Claud
I will buy that, no one should be put down as we are Christians, and I agree there are "overzealous" trads as well as NO who by the way have antisemites among them as well, probably more and bigoted in many ways as they are illiterate to church doctrine.
God bless you
Many false-traditionalist types I know are too busy chasing apparitions, reading about apparitions and prophecies of doom, reading books complaining about changes to Catholic liturgical and disciplinary life, etc., etc. to actually spend time following the liturgical and disciplinary life of the Church, to join the ascetic struggle, or to undertake spiritual reading.
My Mother-in-Law, God bless her, in between taking care of a house and hardworking husband (her four children are all grown and mvoed on now), working for one of the Deaneries of the Diocese of Pittsburgh as an administrative assistant, and counseling divorced Catholics to help them maintain the faith and personal cheerfulness in their dire situation, also finds time to attend daily Mass, say the entire Divine Office daily, pray the Rosary, and engage in Spiritual reading. God love her, I've yet to meet a traditionalist even capable of half of what she does, let alone doing it.
"If what you [Bulldog Catholic] are saying is true, then Jesus was the greatest conman who ever lived. If the very sacrifice itself has been somehow penetrated by Satan, then the Church has fallen, contrary to the promise of Christ. If what Peter binds on earth is not bound in heaven, if 'he who hears you' does NOT 'hear Me', then you've gone a long way to proving that salvation history is a sham."
C.S. Lewis, an Anglican, used that sort of argument against atheists. So have I from time to time against Protestants, most recently Biker Pat. Here an NO RC is using it against a more traditional one.
The argument works as above stated by Rutles4Ever only if one identifies the Church with a particular see, in this instance Rome, under any and all circumstances. Constantinople, for example, says to be Orthodox requires union with Constantinople. Orthodox outside of that union, however, find this claim absurd.
I never said that he would not have to become bishop. I said that Karl Keating stated a man had to be a bishop PRIOR TO being elected.
That is an error.
No spiritual lineage? Interesting.
Karl Keating, self proclaimed Catholic magisterium. I think I'll go on a cruise with him to hang out with him.
He is so cool. Even if he is in error.
By the way, I am quite certain that Gerry Matatics is responsible for more conversions to Catholicism than any other Catholic alive today.
Karl Keating is obsessed, as usual. And anyone who knows the years of baggage he brings to this knows exactly what I am talking about.
Dear Mershon,
"That is an error."
What is an error? Your representation of Mr. Keating's comments, or Mr. Keating's comments, themselves?
sitetest
This seems to follow the command of Christ to “Take this and eat” One takes with the hand.
Sure why not. Kneel? Never!
I don’t recall anyone kneeling at the last supper.
What is the basis for your objections, other than a (lower case) tradition from the middle ages?
As far as I can determine, there appears to be an insular, "apologetics" bubble, cut off from the real world and known to only a few cogniscenti where self-styled "Catholic" spokespeople duke it out among themselves for the title of heavyweight king or to determine who is the most Catholic. It all seems to get rather personal and involve a certain amount of rivalry.
Protestantism is characterized by a concern over what men (e.g. Matatics) think of the Pope.
Catholicism is characterized by a concern over what the Pope thinks (if anything) about men (e.g. Matatics).
I belong to the latter category.
I'm more concerned about the Pope's opinion of Traditionalists than vice versa.
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.