Trads and neo-trads

  • Thread starter Thread starter moderate_trad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I firmly believe he will be called,** St. John Paul the Great. **
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
You’re going to get flamed for that one. Still, I will add to it. This will happen long before Fr. Malachi is even beatified, if that ever happens. But then that’s just my opinion. It comes from following popes and not dissenters.
 
Divisions and sub-divisions. What’s next, a thread discussing the differences between Catholic “neo-trads” and “neo-neo-trads?”

Sorry, but I hate labels which divide. They serve little to no useful purpose.

One says, “I am of Apollos,” another “I am of Paul”. But they are both of Christ.

We are CATHOLIC. Within Catholicism are many different spiritualities and personalities. But they need not be separate and labelled, like canned soups in a market place. Personalities and spiritualities mix, and Catholics, though different in many ways, must unite.

We are Catholic. Let’s leave it at that.
I completely agree with you. 👍
 
You’re going to get flamed for that one. Still, I will add to it. This will happen long before Fr. Malachi is even beatified, if that ever happens. But then that’s just my opinion. It comes from following popes and not dissenters.
Fr. Martin’s reward was not in this world. It will be a shame if he is not beatified, but that is our loss, not his.

He was not a dissenter and he had the benefit of actually knowing John Paul II in order to form his opinions. Added to that, Fr. Martin had academic credentials, formation and priestly experience and wisdom that was superior to John Paul II’s.

He actually defended him far longer than he probably should have before he concluded that JPII was lacking in his adaquecy to defend the faith.
 
I firmly believe he will be called,** St. John Paul the Great. **
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
I’m not going to flame you for having that opinion Deacon Ed, but I am curious. Why do you think he deserves this title if you do?

What specifically did he do that was comparable to Leo the Great, Gregory the Great or Nicholas the Great?

What was so great about his papacy that St. Pius X doesn’t get the title also or Leo XIII or Pius IX or Gregory XVI or St. Pius V?
 
**Originally Posted by consumedconvert **
Divisions and sub-divisions. What’s next, a thread discussing the differences between Catholic “neo-trads” and “neo-neo-trads?”
Sorry, but I hate labels which divide. They serve little to no useful purpose.
One says, “I am of Apollos,” another “I am of Paul”. But they are both of Christ.
We are CATHOLIC. Within Catholicism are many different spiritualities and personalities. But they need not be separate and labelled, like canned soups in a market place. Personalities and spiritualities mix, and Catholics, though different in many ways, must unite.
We are Catholic. Let’s leave it at that.
Labels are defining terms. The Church specializes in labels. Part of the problem is that today we aren’t labeling anything but broad all-encompassing terms that destroy clarity.

“Anonymous Christians”. Undefined “unity” and worst of all we’ve lost the term “heretic”

I’ve heard more than one group of liberal and conservative dissenters call their liturgical extravagances “part of their charism” or different “spiritualities.”

We need more labels to know where we stand, not less.
 
Sure it does. JPII’s philosophy and writing were reckless and unsecure. Theology of the Body is a trainwreck and it has lead to all of this experiential, phenomenological “shot in the dark” religious experience.

Fr. Malachi Martin in describing JPII’s philosophy said, “He has evoked error and people trying to understand him have fallen into heresy.”

It was never JPII"s job to be a “philosopher” or “give the Church” some new methodology of looking at the world. His job was to protect and guard the deposit of faith. He did not do a good job of that.

As far as the canonization goes, I certainly hoped his soul was saved, but as far as heroic virtue goes, He has too many negatives on his papacy for it to be wise to raise him to the altars.
Wow. I consider him one of the greatest people who ever lived. I’ve spent decades studying his work, which is unmatched in its brilliance and effect. Moreover, he sponsored the writing of the second catechism in Church history, a seminal document of immeasurable quality and impact. Lastly, as a champion of anti-Communism, he helped Europe cast off the Marxist curse that had tormented it since 1917. Your position on JP2 highlights the enduring and baffling diversity of opinion in the world of Man.
 
Calling someone a ‘trad’ reminds me of what we called tankers in the Army --* ‘tread-heads’*. Ha.😃
 
That is food for thought.

We should be thankful we don’t use laptops and post during Mass.
haha. Yeah, I’ve also sat at Mass thinking about what people on the forum would think.

Too much Internet.
 
Yipe.

In the Catholic Church, authority trickles down from above. It never arises from beneath. Authority comes from Christ, to the Pope, to the Hierarchy, to the Priests and Deacons, down to us, the laity.

It never boils up from the congregation. We aren’t congregationalists.

Alexander VI has been thrown around a lot lately. But can anyone point out where he erred in official public teaching on faith in morals?

So in his official capacity, even he was sufficiently orthodox.

Perhaps a better way of putting it is that the Holy Spirit ALWAYS protects Christ’s Church from error, even from the likes of Alexander VI.

Or else why wouldn’t he have declared himself to be a god?

God looks out for us. He has not abandoned us. He did not abandon his Church at any time throughout history; he has not done so today. By his grace he has continually made it clear where to find the Truth.

Where Peter is, there is the Church.
I’m not well-informed on Alexander VI, but there were some Medieval Popes that definitely expressed teachings we don’t share today.
 
I’m not well-informed on Alexander VI, but there were some Medieval Popes that definitely expressed teachings we don’t share today.
Alexander VI was notorious for his lifestyle.

His official teachings were, however, not in error.

CC
 
Wow. I consider him one of the greatest people who ever lived. I’ve spent decades studying his work, which is unmatched in its brilliance and effect. Moreover, he sponsored the writing of the second catechism in Church history, a seminal document of immeasurable quality and impact. Lastly, as a champion of anti-Communism, he helped Europe cast off the Marxist curse that had tormented it since 1917. Your position on JP2 highlights the enduring and baffling diversity of opinion in the world of Man.
His stand against communism was certainly admirable.

I don’t really know what the standards for canonization are.

However, I think we shouldn’t jump and canonize him, solely because of his popularity a few years ago. If he’s a Saint, then God will have it so decreed, if he isn’t, well, it won’t happen.

But we can’t vote in Saints.

As to his Catechism, I find it to be a little bit confusing. I’m not saying it taught error or anything, but all of the qualifiers really take away from the clarity of the text, if you ask me.

Still, his demeanor when dealing with his would-be assassin was admirable.

I really wish all the Assisi type stuff hadn’t happened, so there’d be no ambiguity about any of it.

It’s weird. One group: “St. Athanasius the Second!”

Another: “St. John Paul the Great!”

Lotsa speculation.
 
From a Catholic point of view, the “contraversey” over the possibility of JPII’s Canonization is totally overblown.

When’s the last time we saw the Vatican “rush” into anything? 😃

Canonization is an innfallible declaration of the Church. If John Paul II is canonized, he is a Saint in heaven who led a life of heroic virtue on Earth. It does not mean we must agree with every prudential decision he ever made.

So once it’s declared–if it is declared–it’s infallibly declared.

So at that point there can be no contraversy, at least for a Catholic.
 
His stand against communism was certainly admirable.

I don’t really know what the standards for canonization are.

However, I think we shouldn’t jump and canonize him, solely because of his popularity a few years ago. If he’s a Saint, then God will have it so decreed, if he isn’t, well, it won’t happen.

But we can’t vote in Saints.

As to his Catechism, I find it to be a little bit confusing. I’m not saying it taught error or anything, but all of the qualifiers really take away from the clarity of the text, if you ask me.

Still, his demeanor when dealing with his would-be assassin was admirable.

I really wish all the Assisi type stuff hadn’t happened, so there’d be no ambiguity about any of it.

It’s weird. One group: “St. Athanasius the Second!”

Another: “St. John Paul the Great!”

Lotsa speculation.
As to the Catechism, read the introduction to the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, brought out by Benedict XVI just one or two years ago. In the intro, Pope Benedict explains that the CCC was meant mostly as a tool for Bishops, and as a basis for local catechisms (like the USCCB’s Catholic Catechism for Adults and Peter Kreefts Catholic Christianity), which accounts for its depth and technical language. Every household should have one, but I agree that it’s often not the best catechetical tool; a catechism based on the CCC can be much more useful for some.

So here we have a Universal Catechism as a basis for all other Chatechisms. To say that is in no way to detract from this achievement.
 
I’m not going to flame you for having that opinion Deacon Ed, but I am curious. Why do you think he deserves this title if you do?

What specifically did he do that was comparable to Leo the Great, Gregory the Great or Nicholas the Great?

What was so great about his papacy that St. Pius X doesn’t get the title also or Leo XIII or Pius IX or Gregory XVI or St. Pius V?
What Pope John Paul did was to carry out during his papacy, the opening words which he spoke, when he first appeared on the balcony of St. Peter.i.e, “Do not be afraid”

What he did is to point out and lead people to the correct conclusion that so long as they believe in, and have trust in Jesus, there is nothing to fear in this world, as it is merely a place of pilgrimage. What he did was to capture the youth, in a way never before accomplished, and made them proud to proclaim and to live their faith, in a world which gives nothing but messages of hedonism. He has born the weight of a troubled Church when so many were leaving, including priest, nuns and religious. I for one, believe that the quality of what we now have surpasses the collective quality of what we had before. (admitted there are notable exceptions) He has borne the weight of being blamed for problems which had long existed and which were surfacing during his pontificate, as if he had caused them. He, whether many believe it or not, was a mystic with a spirituality which was deeper than most of us could even dream of. I say all this acknowledging that I am in no way infallible or even close. This is my humble opinion of a man whom I loved from the first day of his pontificate until his death. Time itself will prove which of us is correct.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
 
Canonization is an innfallible declaration of the Church. If John Paul II is canonized, he is a Saint in heaven who led a life of heroic virtue on Earth. It does not mean we must agree with every prudential decision he ever made.

So once it’s declared–if it is declared–it’s infallibly declared.

So at that point there can be no contraversy, at least for a Catholic.
I’m sorry but canonizations are not infallible. St. Thomas when addressing the question calls it the infallibility of canonizations a “pious belief” but they are not definitively infallible.

Any actual infallible canonization would be the equivalent of new public revelation and that’s not possible.
 
Wow. I consider him one of the greatest people who ever lived. I’ve spent decades studying his work, which is unmatched in its brilliance and effect.
What are you comparing his work to?
Moreover, he sponsored the writing of the second catechism in Church history, a seminal document of immeasurable quality and impact.
Superlatives aside, what is it specifically that makes it so good?
Lastly, as a champion of anti-Communism, he helped Europe cast off the Marxist curse that had tormented it since 1917.
He was capable of battling raw Communism because he was a protege’ of Cardinal Wyzinski.

He was not prepared in any way to fight against Western materialism. He never could penetrate beyond the 'rock star" image that he portrayed. People would cheer him without even hearing what he said.
Your position on JP2 highlights the enduring and baffling diversity of opinion in the world of Man.
True. I find the adulation baffling unless someone is unfamiliar with the great Popes of the past.

It was in reading St. Pius X that I found what a great Pope could write and teach.
 
What Pope John Paul did was to carry out during his papacy, the opening words which he spoke, when he first appeared on the balcony of St. Peter.i.e, “Do not be afraid”
Yes. I remember that day very well. I’ve never yet figured out what exactly he was talking about.
What he did is to point out and lead people to the correct conclusion that so long as they believe in, and have trust in Jesus, there is nothing to fear in this world, as it is merely a place of pilgrimage.
How did he point this out with the necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church? Your description sounds like the same things the Rev. Billy Graham has said for decades.
What he did was to capture the youth, in a way never before accomplished, and made them proud to proclaim and to live their faith, in a world which gives nothing but messages of hedonism.
But unfortunately, he didn’t help shape their faith correctly. Just look at John Vennari’s DVD’s (parts are on youtube) showing the lack of teaching that children been the victims of when it comes to showing respect for God’s House.
He has born the weight of a troubled Church when so many were leaving, including priest, nuns and religious.
In 1978 he had the opportunity to engage in a major restoration. He chose not to do that.
I for one, believe that the quality of what we now have surpasses the collective quality of what we had before.
I don’t know. I’ve seen young bishops who don’t even twitch a knee to the tabernacle. Many priests I know simply don’t believe in the faith in a clear and simple way. Many deny articles of faith. They believe in Karl Rahner more than Christ.
(admitted there are notable exceptions) He has borne the weight of being blamed for problems which had long existed and which were surfacing during his pontificate, as if he had caused them.
He knew about these things and was warned about them for years. LeFebvre told him numerous times, Fr. Martin told him to his face a number of times. Fr. Martin said, “We have covered his eyes with papers and photos. We have filled his ears with taped recordings. We have given him first class reports and he has done nothing. NOTHING!”

Mr. Messori the Italian journalist who published “Crossing the Threshold of Hope” pressed him on questions about the crisis in the Church. He said that John Paul II pounded the table and told him there is no crisis.
He, whether many believe it or not, was a mystic with a spirituality which was deeper than most of us could even dream of.
Why that deep mysticism translated into so many scandalous and confusing messages is part of the mystery.
I say all this acknowledging that I am in no way infallible or even close. This is my humble opinion of a man whom I loved from the first day of his pontificate until his death. Time itself will prove which of us is correct.
It’s very possible to love someone and still know they did a bad job at something. A diocesan priest once told me something like, 'Pretending his faults didn’t exist doesn’t do anyone any good."

We can all pray for the repose of his soul, which is what we should be doing right now. But I believe B16 is spending his whole pontificate cleaning up a mess left behind and it will be B16’s successors who will have to continue that task.
 
True. I find the adulation baffling unless someone is unfamiliar with the great Popes of the past.

It was in reading St. Pius X that I found what a great Pope could write and teach.
Then let me un-baffle it for you. Your opinion is just that, your opinion. There are many in the world that you will find do not share the same opinion as you. Therefore, some actually do “get” John Paul II in a way that you may not. This is not a good/bad issue. It is your opinion.

What is not opinion is that he was chosen by the Holy Spirit to lead the Church over others, such as Fr. Malachi, whom I readily admit that I do not get.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top