Actually every theology teacher is suposed to seek the mandatum from the local bishop (Ex corde Ecclesiae). Most do not, thanks to the Land-O-Lakes doctine that “academic freedom” trumps Truth. We should not be left to our own devices to “fish out” matters that the Church regulates for us. Catholic universities and their faculty should submit to legitimate authority.
Unfortunately, what they “should” do and what they “actually” do are quite divergent. Until there’s a more accurate ruler, I don’t think its inappropriate to take caution with what is being taught at these schools.
In a word, yes, the human element of the Church has lacked vigilance on this matter. Why is that so difficult to figure out?
Just wanted to make sure I knew who was responsible for keeping the Bishops in line in carrying out their responsibilities. Thanks for clarifying.
Look, you can engage in this sort of magical thinking and pretend that it’s historical Catholicism if you like. There have been any number of times throughout Church history when the bishopric has not kept proper vigilance on a given matter. There are no specific promises from our Lord that the bishops will always and everywhere clamp down on Catholic universities that ceased to be true to the Faith. You can bury your head in the sand, you can look the other way in the face of massive evidence to the contrary, you can even play the “Look how faithful I am and don’t you wish you were as faithful as me” game, but it doesn’t change the facts. There has been a massive loss of Catholic identity among Catholic colleges and universities worldwide. Many of these schools are not only not Catholic any more, they are anti-Catholic. The bishops have not yet exercised the oversight that they should have. You can pretend all you like that it isn’t so and make out that your denial of these facts is an act of fidelity and piety on your part; if that makes you happy then great. But it isn’t reality and Catholicism is a religion grounded and founded on bedrock reality.
In addition to DavidPalm’s helpful comments, I’d also point out that the OP used the accepted language of this website to formulate a request that made perfect sense. Although people may not like that “traditional” Catholicism has come to mean pre-Vatican II, it has, at least here. By using it, the OP made the most direct and clear question possible, IMO.
Sorry if I misunderstood, but…
Ok, I understand your point, but still disagree with the use in the OP message that at least implicitly made the comparison of traditional=faithful and so “liberal” = non-traditional = non-faithful.
Actually, I think it does. You were arguing that “traditional” should cover ALL of Catholicism because:
As Post # 7 shows, this forum (Traditional Catholicism) is for “talk about the Traditional Latin Mass, the Indult, SSPX, sedevacantism”. As that appears to be a non-exclusive list, that’s basically the concerns of Catholics who focus on pre-Vatican II forms (and I’m just using this term as a summation). Which is precisely what the OP indicated in the first post by asking:
Post #7 explains what “traditional Catholicism” means on this website and the OP used it in exactly that way. So the post is highly relevant to your concern about how people are using the word “traditional”.
It does mention pre-VII practices and terms but also ones that are exclusively post-VII (indult, SSPX for example). So, my point is only that the post does not equate, simply and exclusively, “traditional” with “pre-VII” as I thought you implied.
I’m not sure how you can say those things are exclusively post-VII. SSPX was formed out of opposition to Vatican II. In fact, when I ran a search to look up some SSPX threads, just to make sure I wasn’t misunderstanding them, the very first reply in the very first thread I looked at - forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=320828 - was from you, acknowledging as much:
As far Indult goes, I have to admit, I didn’t know what that word went. But a quick search brings me to nothing but information about “traditional” Catholics and the Latin Mass.diggerdomer said:
I’m also using pre and post as they typically are, temporally. Pre-VII means things before VII, post VII means things after VII. There was no SSPX or indult relevant to our topic before VII . The Bible and Creed are pre-VII but they apply to ALL Catholics as part of Catholic Tradition.I’m not sure how you can say those things are exclusively post-VII. SSPX was formed out of opposition to Vatican II. In fact, when I ran a search to look up some SSPX threads, just to make sure I wasn’t misunderstanding them, the very first reply in the very first thread I looked at - forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=320828 - was from you, acknowledging as much:
As far Indult goes, I have to admit, I didn’t know what that word went. But a quick search brings me to nothing but information about “traditional” Catholics and the Latin Mass.
So it seems to me that all four items in that list are very much about pre-Vatican II concerns. Again, I’m using “pre-Vatican II” as a summary term, as the one thing that seems to link all of the various strains of traditional Catholics. Perhaps there is a better term that everyone understands. Wait, there is. The term is “traditional”
This is getting off topic. Perhaps it would be good to start a separate thread if you wish to discuss why some make a distinction between orthodox and “orthodox and traditional”.
This is very un Vatican II of you. Remember, as a condition and right of our baptism, we have rights and responsibilities too.