Is Phatmass guilty of papolatry?

[Didacus]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Apr 4 2006, 10:19 AM']Let me clarify... I would not call the guy a total nimrod... I would say to Dave that the guy is a total nimrod. Since I wrote "not worth argueing with" I thought people would catch that.

Nothing we say will change this guys mind, it's closed.


[snip]

God Bless,
ironmonk
[right][snapback]935240[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Of course my comments may be close to 'nip-picking' at your own comments and if this is apparent I must apologize.

Iron, I do share your views, and I do share your frustrations. I only question the delivery a bit that's all and yes sometimes the 'delicatesse' of the english language can escape me. Your coments seem at times a little rough that's all.

Mind you, sometimes a 'little' rough is just what the doctor ordered - don't get me wrong. I'm the guy who purposely teaches violence to his kids here (violence is not wrong, the intent behind is wrong - and that intent is what I teach my children but if justified in your violence do what you have to do... but that's another 'debate'). Only that a 'gnetle' hand should be tried before pounding on a table, or wall, or door (I 'pierced' my share of walls in my days... and those days aren't over yet). lol

And why aren't you militant anyhow Iron? If anyone deserves the title don't you? I think you should be millitant...

[Theoketos]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Apr 4 2006, 09:31 AM']And the Protestant schism is somehow infinitely better so that you can dialogue with them?

Not to mention the question of where in the world the idea of schism came from?  Unless you know who posted the original statement.
[right][snapback]935187[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

To tell you the truth, at least in my academic experience, protestants are much easier to talk with in an arguement, even if we completely disagree, at least the tone is civil, most of the time. Even the Eastern Orthodox in my program have at least an understanding of that both of us geniunely seek the truth.

However, when I speak to most radical shcismatic tradiontioanlists, I get accused of Papolatry, Modernism, Liberalism, close mindedness, and cowardess, after only a moment's' conversation with out hesitation and with due recourse to clarify. And this happens not just on line, but to my face. This is not bold bravey, but cowardly rashness.

Further, Prostestants are invinciably ignorant most of the time, at least most of the ones in my experience. However, in my experience, the Ultratraditionalists should and could know better. That indeed makes them at least more culpable. However, I am, in the end, thankfully, not the judge of that. I pray that those who seperate themselves return to the Church.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Apr 4 2006, 10:37 AM']
[snip]

However, I am, in the end, thankfully, not the judge of that. I pray that those who seperate themselves return to the Church.
[right][snapback]935260[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Amen to that...

Amen.

[son_of_angels]

I'm sorry, what? "Most Protestant's are invincibly ignorant..."

If you've met them, I certainly hope not. To be "invincibly" ignorant of truth is a form of Hell, whether it merits punishment or not, and we have the duty to bring them out of hit.

I would also say "yeah right." As much dialogue and communications that go on in the civilized world today, what real likelihood is there that someone does not have the ability to seek out the Truth in the Catholic Church. I trust their intelligence more than that.... If I have the ignorance and grace to go to heaven (though I presume nothing), they can surely have the intelligence to make it to Hell.

As for "papalotry" yeah, I think it exists. Funny enough, I think "Mariolatry" exists as well. But one has to be specific. In the former case, I should think that this exists in the media and secular worship of the pope, without the recognition of the One from whom he gains his authority. For the latter, look no further than Santeria, that foul and infectious blasphemy spread by a lack of pastoral oversight in poorer communities.

In both cases, love of the pope, or even of the Blessed Virgin, for a cause other than God (such as paganism or selfishness) is required for it to be a form of idolatry, so those that accuse such things can just pipe down!

[Era Might]

[quote]Let no one, therefore, outdo us in the sincerity of our love, devotion, and generosity toward Mother Church and the Pope. Let no one outdo us in laboring so that the Church and the Pope may be universally known--their desires realized and loved. Let no one outrun us in following the Pope's directions, all of them--unreservedly and without complaint, eagerly and without hesitation. Let us give full, filial, and perfect assent of mind, of heart, of action, not only to what the Pope as [i]Pope[/i] decides solemnly in matters of dogma and morals, but also in all things whatever they may be, that he teaches, commands, or desires. Let no one surpass us in showing the tenderest solicitude for the Pope, by sacrificing ourselves, and longing each day and each hour, to become living holocausts of reverence and tender love for the Church, and our sweet visible Christ on earth--the Pope!

--SAINT Don Luigi Orione, "God's Bandit"[/quote]

I think that should be the Phatmass motto.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Apr 4 2006, 12:34 PM']Of course my comments may be close to 'nip-picking' at your own comments and if this is apparent I must apologize.

Iron, I do share your views, and I do share your frustrations.  I only question the delivery a bit that's all and yes sometimes the 'delicatesse' of the english language can escape me.  Your coments seem at times a little rough that's all.
[right][snapback]935256[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I wouldn't deliver my thoughts like that to whoever Dave is talking about... If I was talking to the guy, I would ask more questions... From the ones that I have delt with and knowing what their typical responses are, dialoging with them is often like a monologue to a wall.


[quote]And why aren't you militant anyhow Iron?  If anyone deserves the title don't you?  I think you should be millitant...[/quote]

[Dave]

If I may hijack this thread for a moment ...

He used to be Church Militant, actually. I don't know why he later got changed to Church Faithful. He shouldn't have been, though.

Ok, back to the topic of this thread!

[Socrates]

[quote name='Dave' date='Apr 4 2006, 05:22 PM']If I may hijack this thread for a moment ...

He used to be Church Militant, actually.  I don't know why he later got changed to Church Faithful.  He shouldn't have been, though.

Ok, back to the topic of this thread!
[right][snapback]935728[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I think the unwritten policy is that outspoken conservatives cannot have the "militant" flag.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote]If anyone should say that the Roman Pontiff has merely the function of inspection or direction but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters pertaining to faith and morals, but also in matters pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the entire world, or that he has only the principal share, but not the full plenitude of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate over all Churches and over each individual Church, over all shepherds and all the faithful, and over each individual one of these: let him be anathema
[i](Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ, #3). [/i][/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Dave' date='Apr 4 2006, 08:58 AM']I've heard at least one traditionalist claim that Phatmass essentially worships the pope by acting like he can do no wrong and treating everything he says as though it were gospel truth.  And yes, this person used to be on Phatmass.  How shall we defend ourselves from that charge?
[right][snapback]935155[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
That is a vague and ludicrous charge made to deflect from discussion of the actual issues.
These rad-trads worship their own egos, and set themselves up as their own little popes.

Most of them seem to go out of their way to try to find things wrong with Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and use these percieved flaws to justify essentiually disregarding their teachings altogether.

We should pray for them and a conversion from their stubborn pride, but it is probably not worth answering such silly and meaningless charges.

[Amator Veritatis]

[quote]Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...I've seen exactly the same thing with regards (sic) to Traditionalists and Pope St. Puis (sic) X.[/quote]

While this may or may not be true, the fact remains that there are no documented scandals or acts of imprudence on the part of St. Pius X. Besides, he is a Saint, and Popes Benedict XVI, John Paul II, [i]et al[/i]. are not. A person could legitimately defend all that a given Pope or a given person were to do publicly so long as such a defence were in keeping with reality. If St. Pius X never made a public mistake, one could defend all his public acts as laudable or at least acceptable. If this be not the case for John Paul II, then such defence of his every action would be improper. Very few honest individuals doubt that John Paul II made prudential errors, at very least, in some if not many of his public decisions, [i]viz[/i]., the Assisi events, kissing the Koran, [i]et al[/i].

Edited April 5, 2006 by Amator Veritatis

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Peccator' date='Apr 4 2006, 10:06 AM']Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...I've seen exactly the same thing with regards to Traditionalists and Pope St. Puis X.
[right][snapback]935230[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

What is this referring to?

[goldenchild17]

[quote]Saying that the Mass that is approved by the Vatican is invalid, is schismatic. When someone says traditionalist, this tells me that they believe the approved Vatican Mass is invalid.[/quote]
All this means is you don't know the different traditionalists. There are those of the indult, who as a rule are in communion with Rome and therefore are supposed to consider the new mass valid. They are called traditionalists. There are many traditionalists that think the new mass is valid.

[quote]Now please refer to the quotes from St. Escriva I posted above.[/quote]
I agree with him. I don't see that they are completely relevant, but I agree with what he says. He is a saint of the Church, why would I disagree with him? I don't see anything in his quotes that any type of traditionalist would disagree with.

[quote]Whoever thinks the Vatican approved Masses are invalid, is not a real Catholic.[/quote]
That is the claim, and while this is certainly an issue. You totally avoided the question you quoted. If you can dialogue with Protestants, why can't you do so with Traditionalists, who can be considered by many today to be Protestants?

[goldenchild17]

[quote]Let me clarify... I would not call the guy a total nimrod... I would say to Dave that the guy is a total nimrod. Since I wrote "not worth argueing with" I thought people would catch that.

Nothing we say will change this guys mind, it's closed. [/quote]
And the Protestant sects are so much more open to what a Catholic has to say?

[quote]Satan attacks us by our own reasoning... [/quote]
He attacks us in many different ways. Are you saying that reasoning is not to be used? Because it is a tool of Satan?

[quote]he uses one of the greatest military tactics ever... divide and conquer. Satan will first try to get us to rationalize and reason that the Vatican is wrong... once we are cut off from the Grace received from the Mass, then he will try to get us to fall into habitual sin to cause our destruction.... that is how Satan wins souls.[/quote]
I think he would and has approached it a bit differently.


[quote]Nothing is more foolish and nimrodic than thinking that the Vatican is wrong about the Catholic faith. If ever we think the Vatican is wrong, then we do not understand properly. Someone who is a "traditionalist" should know that the Church is right, it's an oxymoron to be a "tradtionalist catholic" because to say that the Vatican is wrong is totally un-Catholic.
God Bless,
ironmonk[/quote]
1. Traditionalists have many different beliefs in regards to these things. To generalize is to totally misunderstand what you are dealing with.

2. ALL traditionalists, no matter their conclusion, believe the true Church is right in all doctrine.

3. Can there be errors in things not infallibly defined? Certainly, and there has in the past.

4. Can there be something even more complex going on(Which I will not delve into here)? Something that even fewer Traditionalists care to even think about. This last group is the one most closely fitting your definition. But is only a small portion of Traditionalists.

[goldenchild17]

[quote]However GC17, because I want to respect you and you to respect me, let us be honest, what particular act do you have problem with that a pope has done in your life time?[/quote]
Hmm I never said I personally had any problem with anything the Pope has said or did or pronounced. Just because I am defending an erroneous idea about Traditional Catholicism, doesn't mean I believe the Pope to be in error. Any Catholic with any respect for logic would point out the fallacies I am.



With that said, the question you raise is one I intend to answer sometime in the near future for those who ask. Although I am not sure I should as these ideas are forbidden from being discussion on this forum as far as I can remember. But if I am asked and publicly allowed I will explain my recent search in detail at a future date.

[goldenchild17]

[quote]To tell you the truth, at least in my academic experience, protestants are much easier to talk with in an arguement, even if we completely disagree, at least the tone is civil, most of the time.  Even the Eastern Orthodox in my program have at least an understanding of that both of us geniunely seek the truth. [/quote]
Generalizations. The attitude is in the individual and is found in all faiths, Catholicism also. There are always people willing to learn and discuss, you just have to be ready when you come across them. But with such an attitude as displayed above, one is purposely witholding the truth from said traditionalists if you refuse to even try to share the truth with them. If you don't try you'll never know what happens.

[quote]However, when I speak to most  radical shcismatic tradiontioanlists, I get accused of Papolatry, Modernism, Liberalism, close mindedness, and cowardess,  after only a moment's' conversation with out hesitation and with due recourse to clarify. And this happens not just on line, but to my face. This is not bold bravey, but cowardly rashness. [/quote]
Doesn't really matter what we call it. Many many people in the world struggle with charity. And someone who doesn't practice charity is probably the number 1 turnoff in a discussion. I have been on both the recieving and the serving end of this. I recall after going back and reading many of my discussions with Protestants from a long time ago how nasty at times I could become and how closed off they become. But people change. I certainly am trying, and despite the occasional sarcastic note(which I most often mean in a light-hearted way) I am improving. What I'm saying is, to generalize and refuse to dialogue with a whole group simply because a good number of the individuals can be nasty is a dangerous path to choose. There are a good deal of nasty people no matter where you go and no matter what they believe. Are you simply going to shut down shop and refuse God's command to spread the gospel everywhere? If you come to a place where your message is being openly rejected and not even addressed, then do as Scripture says, brush your sandals off and try another place, but at least try before assuming they can't be helped.

[quote]Further, Prostestants are invinciably ignorant most of the time, at least most of the ones in my experience. However, in my experience, the Ultratraditionalists should and could know better. That indeed makes them at least more culpable. However, I am, in the end, thankfully, not the judge of that. I pray that those who seperate themselves return to the Church.[/quote]
1. Should you then not evangelize the heretic Protestants who have rejected Catholicism as a former faith and new what the Church taught

2. What about the Traditionalists that were born as such and new no other way of seeing things? Are they any more conscious than the Protestants you describe?

3. Just because a person SHOULD no better, certainly does not mean that they do. Are you going to withold the truth from them, just because they SHOULD know it? A high school student SHOULD know his multiplication tables. But if (s)he does not know them, should you not teach them to this person?