Trads and neo-trads

[KingAlfred]

Truthfully, I just love JP2 and don’t really worry about whether or not he’ll be canonized. He’s my hero, period. What an awesome Catholic intellectual and leader.

 

[GerardP]

Who do you say the really great popes were and why? Curious.

Most recently, the Popes starting with Gregory XVI who saw the modern errors in thinking as a danger to the clear teaching of the Church and ending with Pius XII were all leagues above the average Popes.

Others off the top of my head are:

St. Gregory the Great- for his humility, for his willingness to clear out corruption, for his exceedingly clear and great teaching.

St. Nicholas the Great-for his love and effort towards justice whether it was against kings, bishops or on behalf of individuals or whole populations.

St. Pius V for his willingness and courage to save Europe from the advance of Islam and his devotion to the Blessed Virgin. All the while, vigorously fighting the Protestant revolution.

St. Celestine for having the humility to know that he wasn’t a good Pope and to resign.

Pius VII for his moral integrity in dealing with the Bonaparte’s in particular and guiding the Church through the upheavals caused by the French Revolution.

Blessed Pius IX for having the humility to start out as being a fairly liberal Pope and when seeing the dangers of modernism, turning into a heroic defender of the faith.

St. Pius X–Possibly the greatest Pope ever. Miracle worker as Pope, teacher of adults and children. Powerful, kind, gentle, he had a great sense of humor. Uncompromising with the world.

Finally, after pleading with the conclave not to be elected, he humbly accepted the papacy and did not undermine the grandeur of the office in order to show off his humility.

He was the most unflinching defender of the faith. You can learn so much of the faith from his encyclicals it’s astounding. The Pope of Plain Language. He wrote with a statue of St. John Vianney on his desk and referred to his catechism.

He was a full power, guns blazing pope who also managed to be the parish priest of the whole world.

 

[GerardP]

I was not referring to infallibility, nor did I mention it. I was referring to guidance, as in:
CCC #768 - So that she can fulfill her mission, the Holy Spirit “bestows upon [the Church] varied hierarchic and charismatic gifts, and in this way directs her.”

That refers to the Church as a whole, not the Pope in particular.

I know that the pope can make mistakes and act unwisely. It in no way affects his role as leader.

It does distinguish whether or not he’s a good leader or a bad leader though.

However, it is part of his charism that he has the help of the Holy Spirit in his guidance of the Church.

Again, I don’t see anything in your citations or anywhere else that indicates that the Pope has a guaranteed special charism to help him in his guidance the Church.

I can understand why there might be a question over a decision here or there, but when several succecesors in a row continue basically the same course, it can only be the work of the Holy Spirit.

That doesn’t hold. We’ve had successors of Peter who were scoundrel upon scoundrel for quite a while. The Great Schism lasted around 40 years if I recall correctly.

 

[CradleCath]

Does anyone know of a board where traditionalist Catholics who refuse to treat the Holy Father with disrespect and who do not reject the Vatican II council can discuss the faith free from the interference of those who simply want to insult us? I would appreciate any feedback.

The only boards I have found I those sympathetic to the SSPX, and they tend to allow too many criticisms of the Holy Father.

Any feedback would be great. I think it is pretty clear that traditionalist Catholics who are loyal to Pope Benedict XVI are not welcome here.

You are right about that. I keep thinking that the monitors will remove threads that are derogatory to Traditional Catholics & porsted in the Traditional forum, but it doesn’t happen.

And, no, I’ve not found a board that is tolerant of Traditional Latin Catholics. I won’t read the garbage from the SSPX. sites, either. . They seem to get their kicks, as you said, from insulting the Pope, Vatcian II, etc. I don’t have the answer, but I’ll bet your post will spark a rash of liberals who will tell you: it’s the “trads”, not the tradition.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

The Holy Ghost spoke through St. Peter. He was the only Pope that was given Revelation. No other Pope has had or can have that specific charism.

The infallibility of the Pope is called a negative charism. It prevents him from doing specific things in specific circumstances. It does not suspend the free will of the Pope or protect him in his governance of the Church.

Can someone point to a magisterial document that explains this idea of the Holy Ghost “guiding the Church through the Pope,” because otherwise, it’s sheer wishful thinking.

The doctrine of infallibility teaches that the pope is infallible in teaching two thing, faith and morals. Thats all. What is your problem, other than you dont like Pope John Paul the Great.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[CradleCath]

I almost had to laugh last night at Mass, wondering how many posters here would have complained about what took place.

The lectors were quite articulate, the cantor had a voice that would bring most gals to their knees. But, they all spoke/sang from the pulpit, as we do not have a seperate lectern.

To start the homily, our pastor wished everyone a great 4th of July weekend, then reached over on a table and blew a giant air horn…THAT woke everyone up better that an opening joke ever could.

Then he had a super homily on “freedom” and how true religious freedom required us to stand against things like abortion, etc.

After Communion, he allowed two teenagers to speak. They were on some sort of Pro-Life cross-country walk.

And we now have a great pipe organist, who played “Glory and Praise” songs.

So, for all the “good things” we had at our Mass, I kept wondering how many folks at CAF would be jumping off bridges, screaming “abuse, abuse”

Sounds like just your kind of Mass. By the way, since these two teenagers spoke, why don’t you tell us about this “some sort of Pro-life walk”???

 

[ethelzguy]

You are right about that. I keep thinking that the monitors will remove threads that are derogatory to Traditional Catholics & porsted in the Traditional forum, but it doesn’t happen.

They’ve been removing or closing threads almost daily here recently. I don’t understand how you can say this?

They seem to get their kicks, as you said, from insulting the Pope, Vatcian II, etc.

Seems to me…that’s exactly what the traditionlists here feast on !

 

[ethelzguy]

Sounds like just your kind of Mass. By the way, since these two teenagers spoke, why don’t you tell us about this “some sort of Pro-life walk”???

To be quite honest, the young lady and gentleman were really unprepared to speak to the congregation.

They spoke of their annual walk across the country to raise money for Pro-Life issues. They spoke of how there were three routes, upper, middle, and lower US…one starts in Seattle, one in San Fransisco, and one in LA.

They asked for prayers, they asked for money. They asked people to post prayer intentions in their book to pray for daily as they walked…

That’s the gist of what I remembered.

 

[pnewton]

Again, I don’t see anything in your citations or anywhere else that indicates that the Pope has a guaranteed special charism to help him in his guidance the Church.
.

I know you don’t. I only posted it because you asked, so that others would read it. I have no delusions about changing anyone’s mind here.

 

[KingAlfred]

Most recently, the Popes starting with Gregory XVI who saw the modern errors in thinking as a danger to the clear teaching of the Church and ending with Pius XII were all leagues above the average Popes.

Others off the top of my head are:

St. Gregory the Great- for his humility, for his willingness to clear out corruption, for his exceedingly clear and great teaching.

St. Nicholas the Great-for his love and effort towards justice whether it was against kings, bishops or on behalf of individuals or whole populations.

St. Pius V for his willingness and courage to save Europe from the advance of Islam and his devotion to the Blessed Virgin. All the while, vigorously fighting the Protestant revolution.

St. Celestine for having the humility to know that he wasn’t a good Pope and to resign.

Pius VII for his moral integrity in dealing with the Bonaparte’s in particular and guiding the Church through the upheavals caused by the French Revolution.

Blessed Pius IX for having the humility to start out as being a fairly liberal Pope and when seeing the dangers of modernism, turning into a heroic defender of the faith.

St. Pius X–Possibly the greatest Pope ever. Miracle worker as Pope, teacher of adults and children. Powerful, kind, gentle, he had a great sense of humor. Uncompromising with the world.

Finally, after pleading with the conclave not to be elected, he humbly accepted the papacy and did not undermine the grandeur of the office in order to show off his humility.

He was the most unflinching defender of the faith. You can learn so much of the faith from his encyclicals it’s astounding. The Pope of Plain Language. He wrote with a statue of St. John Vianney on his desk and referred to his catechism.

He was a full power, guns blazing pope who also managed to be the parish priest of the whole world.

Hmmm…

 

[SanJudas]

…but when several succecesors in a row continue basically the same course, it can only be the work of the Holy Spirit.

I agree. How about when several hundred succecesors in a row continue basically the same course, from Peter to Pius XII, and then four more veer off into left field?

(OK, modernists, now get on here and ask us to explain exactly how the Catholic Church has veered off into left field in the last forty years. Even though it’s already been covered* ad nauseum* on a hundred other threads.)

 

[GerardP]

The doctrine of infallibility teaches that the pope is infallible in teaching two thing, faith and morals. Thats all. What is your problem, other than you dont like Pope John Paul the Great.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

I never met JPII so I don’t know if I’d personally like him or not. I am however concerned about the truth of his record and people having clear ideas about the nature of the papacy.

You can love somebody and still tell the truth. I’ll mention Fr. Malachi Martin again, in one of his taped interviews, he describes Pope John XXIII in both good and bad terms. It’s very fair and very human since he personally knew him very well. He talked about what a loving and pius man he was. But he also said, “John was a liberal… he was theologically ignorant…and wiley…great with children and nobody could hate this man. But his piety did not give him perception about his errors.”

 

[consumedconvert]

I agree. How about when several hundred succecesors in a row continue basically the same course, from Peter to Pius XII, and then four more veer off into left field?

(OK, modernists, now get on here and ask us to explain exactly how the Catholic Church has veered off into left field in the last forty years. Even though it’s already been covered* ad nauseum* on a hundred other threads.)

Sigh. Too tired.

Except to say, that you need to interpret the teachings of the Popes of the last forty years in light of the Tradition developed under the reign of the past several hundred.

The continuum was not Peter to Pius XII, but Peter to Benedict II.

 

[LilyM]

I agree. How about when several hundred succecesors in a row continue basically the same course, from Peter to Pius XII, and then four more veer off into left field?

(OK, modernists, now get on here and ask us to explain exactly how the Catholic Church has veered off into left field in the last forty years. Even though it’s already been covered* ad nauseum* on a hundred other threads.)

I’m not going to ask how you think the church has changed and gone on a different course - that it HAS done so since Vatican 2 in a great many ways is indisputable.

In view of Christ’s promise to lead the Apostles (and their successors by extension) into all truth by means of the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and moreover until the end of time and not just for 1960 years, however, the question is why this different course is necessarily a wrong course, even if it is ‘left field’?

 

[Ghoti]

Sigh. Too tired.

Except to say, that you need to interpret the teachings of the Popes of the last forty years in light of the Tradition developed under the reign of the past several hundred.

The continuum was not Peter to Pius XII, but Peter to Benedict II.

You mean that everyone from John V onward were antipopes?

I’ve heard of sedevacantism, but…wow.

 

[SanJudas]

I’m not going to ask how you think the church has changed and gone on a different course - that it HAS done so since Vatican 2 in a great many ways is indisputable.

Thank you for recognizing that. Here we have common ground to continue our discussion.

In view of Christ’s promise to lead the Apostles (and their successors by extension) into all truth by means of the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and moreover until the end of time and not just for 1960 years, however, the question is why this different course is necessarily a wrong course, even if it is ‘left field’?

In the parable of the lost sheep, did the other niney-nine sheep run away, get eaten by wolves, or begin to follow another herdsman, while the shepherd was out looking for the lost one?

Are those who have joined the Church post-Vatican II somehow more valuable than those who have fallen away in the same period of time? And by “fallen away,” I refer not only to those who have stop attending or joined other faiths, but also to those many millions, (the majority of American, Australian, and European Catholics, if one can believe the multiple polls on the subject), who no longer adhere to even the most basic tenets of Our Faith.

There is an argument that those millions would have fallen away anyway. It was the 60’s, the argument goes-- the times were changing, societal values were shifting, other denominations were also losing members, baby boomer rebellion, the drugs, the rock music, TV, etc. But in the face of these negative influences, was the solution to change the traditional teachings and practices of the Church? In the Old Testament, did the Law change in response to the various crises the Israelites faced? Did the rites and devotions of the Israelites, passed down from Moses, change? It seems, then, that our duty in the face of crisis should be to hold fast to the traditional teachings and practices of the Church, and not adopt the same innovations and novelties as the corrupt world which surrounds it. If more had done this, would not the Holy Spirit have come to aid of those in danger of falling away, and helped them remain?

 

[LilyM]

Thank you for recognizing that. Here we have common ground to continue our discussion.

In the parable of the lost sheep, did the other niney-nine sheep run away, get eaten by wolves, or begin to follow another herdsman, while the shepherd was out looking for the lost one?

Are those who have joined the Church post-Vatican II somehow more valuable than those who have fallen away in the same period of time? And by “fallen away,” I refer not only to those who have stop attending or joined other faiths, but also to those many millions, (the majority of American, Australian, and European Catholics, if one can believe the multiple polls on the subject), who no longer adhere to even the most basic tenets of Our Faith.

There is an argument that those millions would have fallen away anyway. It was the 60’s, the argument goes-- the times were changing, societal values were shifting, other denominations were also losing members, baby boomer rebellion, the drugs, the rock music, TV, etc. But in the face of these negative influences, was the solution to change the traditional teachings and practices of the Church? In the Old Testament, did the Law change in response to the various crises the Israelites faced? Did the rites and devotions of the Israelites, passed down from Moses, change? It seems, then, that our duty in the face of crisis should be to hold fast to the traditional teachings and practices of the Church, and not adopt the same innovations and novelties as the corrupt world which surrounds it. If more had done this, would not the Holy Spirit have come to aid of those in danger of falling away, and helped them remain?

Well what did we see after Trent, which did ‘hold fast to the traditional teachings’ and much more besides, as you would advocate doing now?

Did we see the Holy Spirit leading a mass return of those hordes of Protestants who had left under the persuasion of Luther? Is there any evidence that even a single person who would otherwise have become Protestant stayed with the Church instead *because *Trent took something of a hard line?

You’d be hard put to make a case for it, and you’d be just as hard put to make a case that anyone stuck with the church in the 60s because Paul VI stuck to his guns with Humanae Vitae. Many people, on the contrary, report JP2’s ‘Theology of the Body’ as being the single thing which most contributed to their understanding and acceptance of Church teaching on artificial contraception.

I should think it would be much easier to make the contrary case, that both in the Reformation and the 60s more people left the Church BECAUSE OF the hard line taken in Trent and by Paul VI’s teachings against artificial contraception.

And perhaps even slightly easier even to argue that the NO has borne fruit in the many Protestants we see returning to the Catholic fold today, and in the explosion of the Church in Africa and South America in recent decades.

I do think it’s difficult to determine the relative merits of a hard line v a softer line, especially given that we haven’t seen yet the full fruits of the NO and Vatican 2 and won’t for some little time to come at least.

 

[SanJudas]

Did we see the Holy Spirit leading a mass return of those hordes of Protestants who had left under the persuasion of Luther? Is there any evidence that even a single person who would otherwise have become Protestant stayed with the Church instead *because *Trent took something of a hard line?

Absolutely. Entire areas of France, Italy, Germany, and Poland that had fallen prey to the Lutherans and Calvinists remained or returned to the Catholic Faith.

I should think it would be much easier to make the contrary case, that both in the Reformation and the 60s more people left the Church BECAUSE OF the hard line taken in Trent and by Paul VI’s teachings against artificial contraception.

The situation is not analogous. Most of those who became Protestant in Britain, Scandinavia, and parts of Germany did so under extreme duress, i.e. the death penalty. No one left the Church for that reason in the last forty years.

And perhaps even slightly easier even to argue that the NO has borne fruit in the many Protestants we see returning to the Catholic fold today, and in the explosion of the Church in Africa and South America in recent decades.

Exactly how many Protestants? Enough to replace the lost? And evangelization in Africa was already well under way one hundred years ago. As far as South America goes, and even more so including Central America and Mexico, the Catholic population is shrinking, as the faithful fall into disbelief or into the grips of “evangelical” sects.

I do think it’s difficult to determine the relative merits of a hard line v a softer line, especially given that we haven’t seen yet the full fruits of the NO and Vatican 2 and won’t for some little time to come at least.

Having tasted some of those fruits, I’m not sure I want to see the “fullness” of them!

 

[pnewton]

I agree. How about when several hundred succecesors in a row continue basically the same course, from Peter to Pius XII, and then four more veer off into left field?

Easy. “Veer” is a subjective judgment. There is no geographical element to the direction of the Church. The speed of the Church’s disciplinary adaptations have increased, but then so has everything in society over the last two generations. Pope Peter through Pius XII could not imagine our world today in their wildest dreams.

 

[PrayforMallory]

Well what did we see after Trent, which did ‘hold fast to the traditional teachings’ and much more besides, as you would advocate doing now?

Did we see the Holy Spirit leading a mass return of those hordes of Protestants who had left under the persuasion of Luther? Is there any evidence that even a single person who would otherwise have become Protestant stayed with the Church instead *because *Trent took something of a hard line?

You’d be hard put to make a case for it, and you’d be just as hard put to make a case that anyone stuck with the church in the 60s because Paul VI stuck to his guns with Humanae Vitae. Many people, on the contrary, report JP2’s ‘Theology of the Body’ as being the single thing which most contributed to their understanding and acceptance of Church teaching on artificial contraception.

I should think it would be much easier to make the contrary case, that both in the Reformation and the 60s more people left the Church BECAUSE OF the hard line taken in Trent and by Paul VI’s teachings against artificial contraception.

And perhaps even slightly easier even to argue that the NO has borne fruit in the many Protestants we see returning to the Catholic fold today, and in the explosion of the Church in Africa and South America in recent decades.

I do think it’s difficult to determine the relative merits of a hard line v a softer line, especially given that we haven’t seen yet the full fruits of the NO and Vatican 2 and won’t for some little time to come at least.

I’m confused. Do you want to overturn the traditional doctrine? Or to hide the doctrine in some way?