Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Fr. Ripperger: NeoCatholicism vs. Traditionalism


Nihil Obstat

Recommended Posts

MarysLittleFlower

Phatmass derailed again... I wouldn't dismiss someone based off their opinions of evolution either. I know to many smart creationists. I don't know if I agree with them or not, and I don't care. I don't care what this priest said either. I was curious to see if he was orthodox and with the FSSP or not and I couldn't find anything against him except that snippet which was pretty funny, but someone else may know something, I don't know. 

Yeah, I read that line and it confused me too- but since I didn't really understand the whole article I thought maybe it was just me. Are we supposed to not listen to the magisterium? Ignore what our Bishop is saying? ignore our priest's homilies? For what? 

Last I heard the priest is with the FSSP... I don't think he meant ignore the Magisterium etc. Just understand everything in light of tradition. I think with many things its up to the priests to teach us cause I wouldn't be able to understand so much anyway 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading the article above, I have no idea what classification I fall under. I accept the magisterium of the Church in big things and small things and I accept all the Ecumenical Councils, the encyclicals of the previous Popes before Vatican II and afterwards, Scripture, etc. I'm sorry to say but it seems to me that Father Chad is making assumptions. Not everyone who likes Vatican II and accepts the current magisterium ignores previous Church teaching and Sacred Tradition…  but to be completely honest, I'm not sure if he's saying that or not. It seems to me that he is.

Isn't the Catechism a document of VII (kinda?) and isn't it actually full of quotes from documents way before VII?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

truthfinder

 

Isn't the Catechism a document of VII (kinda?) and isn't it actually full of quotes from documents way before VII?

To really fuel a storm: the Catechism, while part of the magisterium, is not infallible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HopefulHeart

To really fuel a storm: the Catechism, while part of the magisterium, is not infallible.

Interesting. So, the Catechism is an expression of infallible teaching, but not infallible in itself?

(Sorry to further derail the thread. I'll check out the article when I have more time.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To really fuel a storm: the Catechism, while part of the magisterium, is not infallible.

I'm not sure that you understood the point I was trying to make… if the catechism is a magisterial document, then these words of Father Chad's apply to the catechism: "The Magisterium since Vatican II often ignores previous documents which may appear to be in opposition to the current teaching." But the catechism, while it may ignore previous documents which may appear to be in opposition to the current teaching (whatever that means), doesn't exactly ignore previous documents altogether. The catechism quotes previous documents extensively.

To simplify what Father Chad was saying, as I understood it, VII documents AND "neo-conservatives" tend to ignore previous Church documents PERIOD.

Edited by Seven77
Link to comment
Share on other sites

truthfinder

Interesting. So, the Catechism is an expression of infallible teaching, but not infallible in itself?

(Sorry to further derail the thread. I'll check out the article when I have more time.)

That sounds about right.  Also for example, the anathema statements from the Council of Trent are infallible, but the other discussions are not (which is a good thing; most of it's stayed the same, but there were certain regulations concerning priests that just wouldn't work today).  

I'm not sure that you understood the point I was trying to make… if the catechism is a magisterial document, then these words of Father Chad's apply to the catechism: "The Magisterium since Vatican II often ignores previous documents which may appear to be in opposition to the current teaching." But the catechism, while it may ignore previous documents which may appear to be in opposition to the current teaching (whatever that means), doesn't exactly ignore previous documents altogether. The catechism quotes previous documents extensively.

To simplify what Father Chad was saying, as I understood it, VII documents AND "neo-conservatives" tend to ignore previous Church documents PERIOD.

My apologies - I haven't read the article yet.  Although, the catechism does quote previous writings/councils, etc, but you'll always find a trad who thinks it doesn't quote enough from the previous works (primarily Trent and Lateran). 

WOAH - totally off topic for a moment - but the last post was just combined by the phorum of two posts I had made separately! Neat function for keeping down post numbers

 

AHHHH - it just did it again!!! 

Edited by truthfinder
this phorum has got some mind-boggling features now
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MarysLittleFlower

After reading the article above, I have no idea what classification I fall under. I accept the magisterium of the Church in big things and small things and I accept all the Ecumenical Councils, the encyclicals of the previous Popes before Vatican II and afterwards, Scripture, etc. I'm sorry to say but it seems to me that Father Chad is making assumptions. Not everyone who likes Vatican II and accepts the current magisterium ignores previous Church teaching and Sacred Tradition…  but to be completely honest, I'm not sure if he's saying that or not. It seems to me that he is.

Isn't the Catechism a document of VII (kinda?) and isn't it actually full of quotes from documents way before VII?

i don't think - personal opinion - that Father is talking about those who like the current Magisterium, but about those who don't care for anything that came before

That sounds about right.  Also for example, the anathema statements from the Council of Trent are infallible, but the other discussions are not (which is a good thing; most of it's stayed the same, but there were certain regulations concerning priests that just wouldn't work today).  

My apologies - I haven't read the article yet.  Although, the catechism does quote previous writings/councils, etc, but you'll always find a trad who thinks it doesn't quote enough from the previous works (primarily Trent and Lateran). 

WOAH - totally off topic for a moment - but the last post was just combined by the phorum of two posts I had made separately! Neat function for keeping down post numbers

 

AHHHH - it just did it again!!! 

I know I had the exact same reaction about the new posting feature :D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

truthfinder
 

i don't think - personal opinion - that Father is talking about those who like the current Magisterium, but about those who don't care for anything that came before

 

 

Reminds me of a congregation of religious sisters I know. Lovely (habited) sisters who teach and I think -nurse and never expressed anything *strange* (although I've never gotten into a really deep theological discussion, but we did do scripture studies together), but did express that their community doesn't study anything written from before Vat II. 

Edited by truthfinder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reminds me of a congregation of religious sisters I know. Lovely (habited) sisters who teach and I think -nurse and never expressed anything *strange* (although I've never gotten into a really deep theological discussion, but we did do scripture studies together), but did express that their community doesn't study anything written from before Vat II. 

  that's funny though… because I'm pretty sure that the Bible was written before Vatican II…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ash Wednesday

  that's funny though… because I'm pretty sure that the Bible was written before Vatican II…

BOOM ROASTED

Link to comment
Share on other sites

truthfinder

  that's funny though… because I'm pretty sure that the Bible was written before Vatican II…

I know - but all the commentaries and important theological discussions on the bible - so key to Catholic understanding of it, is not studied, unless written after the council. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nihil Obstat

 

I know - but all the commentaries and important theological discussions on the bible - so key to Catholic understanding of it, is not studied, unless written after the council. 

Not to mention some of the most important social teachings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the article but I couldn't shake the feeling that it was missing the point. All this navel-gazing, labeling etc. When there are only 2 Catholics left because we spent all our energy on this stuff, will they divide themselves into "factions"? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nihil Obstat

I read the article but I couldn't shake the feeling that it was missing the point. All this navel-gazing, labeling etc. When there are only 2 Catholics left because we spent all our energy on this stuff, will they divide themselves into "factions"? 

How does it miss the point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...