T
triumphguy
Guest
In the meantime it stands.
- Status
J
JReducation
Guest
No pope can reverse it, because he would be binding future popes. Once you establish that no pope or council can bind future popes, not pope can come around and make a statement that binds, which is what reversing it would attempt to do.Maybe our next pope will reverse the statement then
- PAX
St. Boniface clarified that popes are bound by natural law, moral law and dogma. Nothing else. Christ is the Law Giver and the pope is the source from which the Church receives the law that Christ has given. Therefore, he is the Living Law. Because he is the Living Law, a deceased pope cannot bind him. You can only have one Living Law, not two.
Can you imagine two reigning popes, one from the Chair of Peter and one from the tomb. That would be chaotic.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
E
EcceAgnusDei
Guest
I think you misunderstood me. I meant that maybe our next Pope will say the opposite – that there was a rupture. If previous Popes cannot bind future Popes, then the hypothetical future Pope could easily make such a statement, yes?No pope can reverse it, because he would be binding future popes. Once you establish that no pope or council can bind future popes, not pope can come around and make a statement that binds, which is what reversing it would attempt to do.
St. Boniface clarified that popes are bound by natural law, moral law and dogma. Nothing else. Christ is the Law Giver and the pope is the source from which the Church receives the law that Christ has given. Therefore, he is the Living Law. Because he is the Living Law, a deceased pope cannot bind him. You can only have one Living Law, not two.
Can you imagine two reigning popes, one from the Chair of Peter and one from the tomb. That would be chaotic.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
- PAX
J
JReducation
Guest
Well, you didn’t mention the word rupture. Of course I misunderstood you.
The issue of rupture is anl assessment of the situation. So yes, popes can disagree on this. It’s not a doctrinal statement. It’s a legal statement.
Pope Benedict says that there was no rupture. Therefore, the two forms of the mass are not to be looked at as two rites, but legitimate and equally holy expressions of the same rite. He says that things change, but at the same time, we must preserve our patrimony alongside with the new. All of these statements are really rules that he’s handing down. While he’s pope, we abide by those rules. After he dies, the next pope can change those rules, based on his answer to the question of rupture.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
E
EcceAgnusDei
Guest
Sorry about thatWell, you didn’t mention the word rupture. Of course I misunderstood you.
W
wasserfall
Guest
I suppose the word “modernist” should be offensive, since modernism is a condemned heresy.
However, I did put the word in quotes (in my last post to which you responded) for a reason. I did it because that is the word used by the typical rad-trad for most of the current college of bishops. I am not a rad-trad. It is not my word, but the hypothetical person of whom I was thinking might speak that way.
As for “the conciliar generation”, I wasn’t aware that it was offensive. In fact I can’t figure out why. I meant only specifically those bishops who are of the age to have been formed largely by the experience of Vatican II and its immediate aftermath. It seems like a reasonable description to me.
Now that I know better, I’ll avoid it.
Lastly, the hypothetical “traditionalist bishop” would not be any current SSPX bishop. I’m thinking more of the 25-50 years from now time frame.
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
Wow.
Please, JR, do us all a favour and write for us a vocabulary book of safe terms that we are graciously permitted to use in the presence of the sensitive ears of the hard working, respectful bishops - I wouldn’t want to risk offending their gentle sentiments.
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
Wasserfall,I suppose the word “modernist” should be offensive, since modernism is a condemned heresy.
However, I did put the word in quotes (in my last post to which you responded) for a reason. I did it because that is the word used by the typical rad-trad for most of the current college of bishops. I am not a rad-trad. It is not my word, but the hypothetical person of whom I was thinking might speak that way.
As for “the conciliar generation”, I wasn’t aware that it was offensive. In fact I can’t figure out why. I meant only specifically those bishops who are of the age to have been formed largely by the experience of Vatican II and its immediate aftermath. It seems like a reasonable description to me.
Now that I know better, I’ll avoid it.
Lastly, the hypothetical “traditionalist bishop” would not be any current SSPX bishop. I’m thinking more of the 25-50 years from now time frame.
JR has no right to dictate the vocabulary you are allowed to use. The language you are using is not offensive to Catholic ears and it’s simply outrageous to argue otherwise.
T
triumphguy
Guest
How about “Your Excellency” for a bishop and “Your Grace” for an archbishop?
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I just find terms like “conciliar generation” and “conciliar church” to be funny as the Catholic Church has been a conciliar Church since the council at Jerusalem in the book of Acts.As for “the conciliar generation”, I wasn’t aware that it was offensive. In fact I can’t figure out why. I meant only specifically those bishops who are of the age to have been formed largely by the experience of Vatican II and its immediate aftermath. It seems like a reasonable description to me.
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
Ah, yes, so I now know how to address them; however, what I need to know is what terms I may or may not use in their gracious presence.
T
triumphguy
Guest
I would imagine polite deference would work well, if you want to be taken seriously.
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
Indeed: Heaven forbid the bishops mistake me for kidding were I to bring up the subject matter of heresy.
T
triumphguy
Guest
They might have to send you to the Inquisitor!
T
TimothyH
Guest
You could drop all the rhetoric about “scorched earth” to start with, and the threats that the bishops risk this “scorched earth” reaction some day when the other side gets into power if they don’t grant you your wishes now.
Listen to yourself. You are using the language of war. The Church is not an enemy. We are not an enemy. The lady sitting in the pew reading Magnificat is not an enemy.
I don’t know how to say this more charitably. You are way beyond wanting a Latin Mass here. You are using military language. Slow down and take a deep breath.
-Tim-
M
Melchior_1
Guest
It’s called “charity” and not being over antagonistic. One can get their point across without pointed rhetoric. There’s one fellow on these boards who attends a SSPX chapel who has been nothing but charitable during conversations, and I told him a week or three ago he was a great ambassador of the SSPX for that reason.
“The conciliar generation”, you see, includes members of religious orders who are going back to the roots of their orders. The conciliar generation are Dominicans who are doing the Dominican Rite and Monfortian devotions. The conciliar generation are Franciscans who are back to living in community, and observing the Rule. The conciliar generation are Benedictines going back to the monastic way. The conciliar generation are actively seeking secular orders. The conciliar generation are, in some cases, seeking the permanent Diaconate. And, wouldn’t you know, obedience to Rome.
The “conciliar generation”, with the tone used on this section of CAF, is filled with negative connotations. Filled with innuendo and tones of accusation, with claims of modernism and other heresy. Tell me, is the above that I said heretical? Of course it isn’t, all of those are traditional practices. ALL of what I said above will build up the Church, and provide us with so many fruits. And all came back to the forefront in this “conciliar generation” that you people loathe so much.
You wonder why people don’t like the language? Perhaps consider how insulting it is to the people who the above fit in what I described a couple of paragraphs ago. As a man who has spent the last six years discerning secular orders, I’m offended by the statement “conciliar generation” simply because the appeal I have to secular orders is based on them going back to the roots of old; something that happened thanks to Vatican II.
R
Rich_C
Guest
I have the same reaction when I read pastoral letters that use the term “post-conciliar,” but to many people on both sides of the issues it’s “the Council” the way St. Paul is “the Apostle” or St. Thomas is “the Doctor.”
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
You forgot “the Philosopher” being Aristotle.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
I will never understand the attitude that we should be humble and obedient to our Bishops unless we think they are wrong, and then, somehow, we are so right we can publicly proclaim the Bishop needs to see the “error of his ways.”
He’s the Bishop. Are you trying to promote discord on purpose? Pray that God’s will be done in this case. I venture to say, neither of us knows what that is.
J
JReducation
Guest
We have to be careful where we use it, because in the context of Traditionalism, these words have a very negative connotation. The reason is that they have been used to offend. Certain Traditionalists have used these words to attack the popes, bishops and anyone who does not identify as a Traditionalist.I suppose the word “modernist” should be offensive, since modernism is a condemned heresy.
However, I did put the word in quotes (in my last post to which you responded) for a reason. I did it because that is the word used by the typical rad-trad for most of the current college of bishops. I am not a rad-trad. It is not my word, but the hypothetical person of whom I was thinking might speak that way.
As for “the conciliar generation”, I wasn’t aware that it was offensive. In fact I can’t figure out why. I meant only specifically those bishops who are of the age to have been formed largely by the experience of Vatican II and its immediate aftermath. It seems like a reasonable description to me.
Now that I know better, I’ll avoid it.
Lastly, the hypothetical “traditionalist bishop” would not be any current SSPX bishop. I’m thinking more of the 25-50 years from now time frame.
In any other context, they are just words. A modernist would be one who subscribes to a particular movement that rose in the late 19th century. A conciliarist would probably be a novel word to many people. I think it was invented by the SSPX. I never heard it before.
If these words were thrown around in the presence of a bishop, especially in reference to him, red flags would go up, because they have been used to deliberately hurt the bishops.
Actually Julia, those who say this are mistaken. We must obey our bishops except when they command us to sin. Whether we think they are right or wrong, whether they are wise or foolish, whether our idea is better than theirs does not figure into the equation.
This concept of obedience was defined by St. Benedict, later by St.Francis of Assisi and later by St. Thomas Aquinas. All said the same thing. Authority does not have the right to command sin. In that case it can be disobeyed. Also, a bishop can be disobeyed when he commands what he has no right to command.
However, the Church also teaches us about a well formed conscience. A well formed conscience is one that feels with the Church. We can’t decide that something is a sin and disobey. The Church determines what is and is not a sin. Those are the guidelines that we follow. If a bishop commands Catholics to wear orange T-shirts for mass on Sunday, it may be a rather silly command, but it’s not a sin. If he’s speaking as the bishop of the diocese, not to wear the orange T-shirt is a sin of disobedience. It can’t be heresy, because orange T-shirts are not revealed truths.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
- Status