Here's A Bomb

[PhuturePriest]

Calm down. Please. This discussion was just getting back towards possible civility. Or at the very least the phatmass equivalent. 

 

On Phatmass, civility ends when stupid abounds.

[blazeingstar]

On Phatmass, civility ends when stupid abounds.

 

Meaning it starts with you?

[PhuturePriest]

Meaning it starts with you?

 

Not the best retort, but it'll do, I suppose.

[Amppax]

Not the best retort, but it'll do, I suppose.

 

I mean, you couldn't have set that up more perfectly. 

[veritasluxmea]

[Ancilla Domini]

Latin is flawed, like every language.  I dislike Traditional Latin Mass becuase of the attitudes, and think that they made the right move in the 600-1200's when they allowed asian mssionarys to say Mass in the Venacular.

 

I don't hate Latin, I despise what comes from those who cling to a language like it's Gospel.

 

We don't cling to it like it's Gospel, we just think this:

"The use of the Latin language prevailing in a great part of the Church affords at once an imposing sign of unity and an effective safeguard against the corruptions of true doctrine." - Pope Pius XII

and this:

"The Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular." - John XXII

and this:

"The Latin language is assuredly worthy of being defended with great care instead of being scorned; for the Latin Church it is the most abundant source of Christian civilization and the richest treasury of piety…. We must not hold in low esteem these traditions of your fathers, which were your glory for centuries." - Pope Paul VI

and...well, this:

"The day the Church abandons her universal tongue [Latin] is the day before she returns to the catacombs." - Pope Pius XII

[truthfinder]

What does Trent say: 22nd Session; Ch. 9, Canon 9: "If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church according to which part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only;..., let him be anathema."

 

The EF Mass itself does not have an attitude; the people who attend sometimes do - it very much depends where you attend.  

[Lilllabettt]

you know the Latin  thing is interesting but is not really the point of the thread.

 

is it possible that people who support the traditional teaching re: marriage have a duty to actually resist the Pope in this situation?  Like a moral responsibility? Is it possible we have to "save' the Pope from error? Is that a thing in general and is it a thing in this instance?? 

[PhuturePriest]

you know the Latin  thing is interesting but is not really the point of the thread.

 

is it possible that people who support the traditional teaching re: marriage have a duty to actually resist the Pope in this situation?  Like a moral responsibility? Is it possible we have to "save' the Pope from error? Is that a thing in general and is it a thing in this instance?? 

 

Many Saints have spoken out against Popes of their time. King Saint Louis, Saint Catherine of Sienna, etc. Saint Henry III was canonized for overthrowing Popes of his time while he had the power to do so. There seems to be this insane idea among most Catholics that criticizing something the Pope said makes you one step away from Sedevacantism. Saints have a long history of criticizing bad Popes of their time, and good Popes who said something worthy of scrutiny.

Edited October 29, 2014 by FuturePacker

[Credo in Deum]

you know the Latin thing is interesting but is not really the point of the thread.

is it possible that people who support the traditional teaching re: marriage have a duty to actually resist the Pope in this situation? Like a moral responsibility? Is it possible we have to "save' the Pope from error? Is that a thing in general and is it a thing in this instance??

I think we do have an obligation if the situation is clearly a violation of doctrine and the Pope has clearly taken a side which is heretical. I personally do not believe this situation with the Synod has been clear enough to make a decision regarding the Pope's position. I personally view Francis as wanting to find a way or maybe new ways to present the beauty of the Church's Doctrine.

[Ash Wednesday]

Y'all dishing out personal attacks or itching to do so need to cool it.

[PhuturePriest]

Y'all dishing out personal attacks or itching to do so need to cool it.

 

I quite agree -- personal attacks are a dish best served cold.

Edited October 29, 2014 by FuturePacker

[Cherie]

you know the Latin thing is interesting but is not really the point of the thread.

is it possible that people who support the traditional teaching re: marriage have a duty to actually resist the Pope in this situation? Like a moral responsibility? Is it possible we have to "save' the Pope from error? Is that a thing in general and is it a thing in this instance??

This is a great question. I'd love to know if the great minds in the Church over the years have written anything to this effect. Does anyone know if there have been any writings about this?

Apparently this article is causing a big stir in the [eta: American] Catholic world. Very, very interesting!

[Benedictus]

Enjoy. An unusually coherent article on Catholic issues (whether or not you agree with his ideas) from the New York Times. Appreciate your thoughts.
 
The Pope and the Precipice

 

I think the whole church, not just the Pope, has always had an influence.I think a lot of the chatter about the Pope making isolated decisions is false. I don't think this really seems to happen. It's fairly clear the Pope, especially this one, is drawing out and bringing together the Bishops and Cardinals. He is expecting more from the laity, not less. He is a Jesuit after all; it's not in their leadership style to make solo decisions. I think he will be collegiate and draw on the voices of the 'whole' in order to offer a more rounded perpective of where things are at.

I think he will have his thoughts on what God is saying in these times and what we should do, but I don't think he'll dictate that without laying the ground for consensus. I think this will work better than staying silent or reaffirming the same old offical lines on everything, but not offering any clear pastoral guidance. Business cannot carry on as usual because most people recognise that all elements within the church are tugging so hard with exasperation that the whole fabric will eventually fall apart if the church doesn't start listening to them, and God, and find a way through.

Edited October 30, 2014 by Benedictus

[Lilllabettt]

Business cannot carry on as usual because most people recognise that all elements within the church are tugging so hard with exasperation that the whole fabric will eventually fall apart if the church doesn't start listening to them, and God, and find a way through.

 

Sometimes i wonder if I live in bizzaro world, since my experience seems so diametrically opposed to other people's descriptions ... 

remember the whole thing about the Church sawing off too often about abortion? That was twilight zone material to me. When did this sawing off about abortion happen? Not in any homily I've heard the last 6 years or so ... 

now there's a crisis about divorce and the Catholic church? really? I've never belonged to a parish that didn't have a support group for divorcees. 

 

I did/do not see any crisis in the Church, except for the sex scandals, which were a management failure not a sign of doctrinal inadequacy. 

Or maybe the crisis is in the wild swings in leadership we've seen. It's almost like Ratzinger was too conservative for them so they over-corrected with Bergoglio. If that's the case that would also represent a management failure. 

[Benedictus]

I did/do not see any crisis in the Church, except for the sex scandals, which were a management failure not a sign of doctrinal inadequacy. 

 

 

It was a bit more than a management failure. It drew attention to how much power the church has and how its structures don't easily allow a means of addressing injustices. It made the laity aware of the lack of voice they often have to make an impact, a lack of support, training, voice, education, advancement on faith matters. They can't suggest or innovate for evangelization as easily as some other churches do. They are often ignored by the leadership, be they deemed Conservative, Liberal or otherwise.

It has dragged the church into a posiion where its credibility and message is damaged. Every non catholic I know associates the church with sex abuse, its use of politics to advance its views, its views on contraception, homosexuality and women (all in the negative). It cuts conversations dead. This is a major problem.

Current problems:  Churches closing, pews empty, religious declining, priests declining, priests defecting or leaving to marry, priests and religious forming asociations to challenge the church (and threatening to take provinces out of the church or striking), protests, church obstructions and demonstrations, opinion polls showing Catholics who attend church disagree with the church in large numbers, Priests, Bishops and religious publicly (or more privately) not agreeing with the church on many hard line issues. Once the baby boomers (priests and laity ) die the church will hit the wall and struggle to operate in terms of money and man power. Crisis much? Well, yes, but especially in Europe and North America who've got more pain to come.
I'm not sure what crisis you're waiting for exactly?

 

Or maybe the crisis is in the wild swings in leadership we've seen. It's almost like Ratzinger was too conservative for them so they over-corrected with Bergoglio. If that's the case that would also represent a management failure. 

 

Pope Francis isn't a liberal, he's a Catholic. If you look at his views as a Bishop I think that's clear. But I think he has as much heart and nuance as he does intellect. Is he Ratzinger, no. But he doesn't need to be.

[Socrates]

It's rather strange that so many who want the Church to become more welcoming, show more mercy, love and peace to the world are so quick to close their open arms, and throw mercy, love and peace under the bus to get rid of the 'conservatives', orthodox, or traditional Catholics.

 

Mercy, peace, and love are only for homosexual activists, Islamic terrorists, left-wing politicians, and other poor victim souls, not for those horrible, awful conservative Catholic types who deserve to be hated.

 

Didn't you get the memo?

[PhuturePriest]

I think that it's a bit too much on the "conservitives you be going down"    Rather I think that Francis is trying to rid the church of verbal abusers (quite frankly like Burke) who use the Bible and Chatechism as their own personal bludgeoning bar.

 

https://www.lifesitenews.com/pulse/pope-emeritus-benedict-considers-cardinal-burke-among-great-cardinals
 

[Poverelli]

I think that it's a bit too much on the "conservitives you be going down"    Rather I think that Francis is trying to rid the church of verbal abusers (quite frankly like Burke) who use the Bible and Chatechism as their own personal bludgeoning bar.

 

I have no desire to enter this discussion in a prolonged way, but felt the need to respond to this. Calling Cardinal Burke a verbal abuser without any facts or reference material to back your assertion is inappropriate.

[Cherie]

Burke is a verbal abuser?! What are you talking about?!