What message is Rome sending?

  • Thread starter Thread starter childofmary1143
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Middleman said:
I came across this viewpoint this morning. Rather disturbing analysis of the situation.

[The Pope’s Denial Problem
By reconciling with extremist bishops, Benedict embraces the far-right fringe.

](http://www.newsweek.com/id/182574)
Click to expand...
This entire article is tripe. How dare the author presume to know PP Benedict XVI’s intent? What the media needs to understand is that he excommunication was originally imposed for disciplinary reasons, and the lifting of the excommunication is equally an internal matter discipline. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with condoning a particular bishop’s perverted espousal of revisionist history. In other words, it most certainly does NOT mean that either PP Benedict XVI or the Church as a body, subscribes to Williamson’s extreme right-wing political views and his bizarre theories of revision history.

But who to explain it to them? Maybe, as I said in another thread, the bishops should step up to the plate and try, at least, to do something. Could be they won’t succeed. But at least they will have done their collective duty to defend HMC. The public silence from the USCCB and it’s members has been deafening.
 
I agree that the silence has been deafening. It is throughthis thread that I have come to understand many of the reasons that SSPX would have been brought back into the fold. However, with that being said Pride can be one of our seven deadlies. I think we as a body in Christ need to explain our reasons. Granted, I am not saying we need to explain ourselves there is a difference in those two statements, but often when we leave people to scratch their heads and wonder why, how are we teaching the message of Mother Church?

God Bless,
 
OK here is my understanding and it is very basic so please don’t attack me- educate me.

Mother Church realized that there were some issues and that some of Her flock was falling way. Mother Church organized the Vatican II Council. This council brought many changes to the Church after much prayer and thoughtful discussion.

SSPX did not wish to go along with those changes - hence power struggle which lead to excommunication. Granted this is in a nutshell.

So I pose these questions:
  1. If we as Catholics believe that the Bible is a contextual document and the we continue to learn more as a Church and as a people through time why would not Mother Church need to change some of the way it does things - I am not talking about moral principles - I am speaking of things such as encouraging the flock to read of the Bible.
  2. If we as Catholics believe in our Holy Magisterium why would we not have the faith that the changes while rough in the beginning would be for the better?
  3. Is it that some of us just simply cannot deal with change?
  4. Where would be now if Peter and Paul could not have dealt with change?
God Bless,
 
joandarc2008 said:
OK here is my understanding and it is very basic so please don’t attack me- educate me.

Mother Church realized that there were some issues and that some of Her flock was falling way. Mother Church organized the Vatican II Council. This council brought many changes to the Church after much prayer and thoughtful discussion.

SSPX did not wish to go along with those changes - hence power struggle which lead to excommunication. Granted this is in a nutshell.

So I pose these questions:
  1. If we as Catholics believe that the Bible is a contextual document and the we continue to learn more as a Church and as a people through time why would not Mother Church need to change some of the way it does things - I am not talking about moral principles - I am speaking of things such as encouraging the flock to read of the Bible.
  2. If we as Catholics believe in our Holy Magisterium why would we not have the faith that the changes while rough in the beginning would be for the better?
  3. Is it that some of us just simply cannot deal with change?
  4. Where would be now if Peter and Paul could not have dealt with change?
God Bless,
Click to expand...
What happened after VII was in many ways a complete break with Tradition. In other words, the changes weren’t “organic” in as much as they didn’t develop naturally over time, which is the way change always has legitimately happened in the Church. Many of the changes weren’t even legitimate; they just happened because some theologian or a liturgist somewhere thought it a good idea and then suddenly, everyone was doing it in the so called dreaded “spirit of Vatican II”, when in actuality, VII never called for so many of the changes. The whole thing was turned into a complete mess, and badly executed. This happened, by en large because of the ambiguity of the VII documents. They were left open to many very loose and wacky interpretations.

Edited to add: I think one has to be very careful when they start saying the bible has to be read in context. That whole idea has opened a can of worms so ugly as to justify all manner of sin these days, such as homosexuality.

I think VII was a failed attempt to bring Protestants back into the Church. The irony is that instead what happened is that it led many Catholics out of the Church and weakened the Church horribly.
 
Jacafamala said:
The Church’s teachings are perfect, but are not always what’s being upheld.There’s a lot of error that’s being taught.
Click to expand...
Whereas you are right and the Church is teaching error? I guess that is always the question. If one pits themselves against the authority of the Church, there is always an undercurrent of confidence I could never obtain. Even if I thought the Church was wrong, I think I would be slow to think I knew more the Magisterium.
 
Whereas you are right and the Church is teaching error?
Click to expand...
That’s not what I said.
I guess that is always the question. If one pits themselves against the authority of the Church, there is always an undercurrent of confidence I could never obtain. Even if I thought the Church was wrong, I think I would be slow to think I knew more the Magisterium.
Click to expand...
Am I misunderstanding you again or are you saying that I’m pitting myself against the Magisterium? 😦 No. Are you dissecting my words and picking them apart rather than trying to understand what I’m saying?:confused:

Sancta Maria, ora pro nobis…:byzsoc:
 
Jacafamala said:
That’s not what I said… Are you dissecting my words and picking them apart rather than trying to understand what I’m saying?:confused:
Click to expand...
No, I am just cautioning all against assuming that the Church is teaching in error. That has happened a lot here. Yes, I did dissect your words and what you said was “a lot of error is being taught.” You are right, and I was wrong in taking that in the worst possible way. Yes, a error is taught by some. I am insulated from that so I am prone to making that mistake. Again, I apologize. I will try and be more careful in representing your words in the future.
 
pnewton said:
No, I am just cautioning all against assuming that the Church is teaching in error. That has happened a lot here. Yes, I did dissect your words and what you said was “a lot of error is being taught.” You are right, and I was wrong in taking that in the worst possible way. Yes, a error is taught by some. I am insulated from that so I am prone to making that mistake. Again, I apologize. I will try and be more careful in representing your words in the future.
Click to expand...
It’s alright; I’m sort of in a bad mood anyway, so lets just forget it.Cheers.
 
What message is Rome sending?

I believe they are sending a message which says we need to get our own house in order before we are going to get europe and the rest of the world in order.
 
joandarc2008 said:
OK here is my understanding and it is very basic so please don’t attack me- educate me.

Mother Church realized that there were some issues and that some of Her flock was falling way. Mother Church organized the Vatican II Council. This council brought many changes to the Church after much prayer and thoughtful discussion.

SSPX did not wish to go along with those changes - hence power struggle which lead to excommunication. Granted this is in a nutshell.

So I pose these questions:
  1. If we as Catholics believe that the Bible is a contextual document and the we continue to learn more as a Church and as a people through time why would not Mother Church need to change some of the way it does things - I am not talking about moral principles - I am speaking of things such as encouraging the flock to read of the Bible.
  2. If we as Catholics believe in our Holy Magisterium why would we not have the faith that the changes while rough in the beginning would be for the better?
  3. Is it that some of us just simply cannot deal with change?
  4. Where would be now if Peter and Paul could not have dealt with change?
God Bless,
Click to expand...
Interestingly enough the flock falling away has not slowed down and has in fact accelerated, especially in the Western World, although non westren countries are not immune. Countries that for years had been staunchly Catholic are rapidly changing. Look at the Philippines and Mexico. Two of the most Catholic countries in the world losing thousands daily to the onslaught of evengelical protestant sects who don’t share our view of ecumenism.

1 The faithful were encouraged to read scripture long before Vatican II.
  1. Changes may indeed be rough and hard to deal with. However, it must be understood that many of the changes that have happened in the Church since Vatican II were not called for by Vatican II or the Magisterium and were in fact put in place by certain people within the Church who clearly in retrospect had their own agenda, and are now recognized by no less an authority than the Holy Father as having been badly thought out and in fact a terrible mistake in many cases.
  2. Some people cannot accept change and see ALL. change as bad. Others accept ALL change as being good. In reality it depends if the change was necessary, well thought out and beneficial.
  3. I have no idea what this question means so perhaps you could explain it to me.:confused: .
 
I did not see Bishop Williamson take back his harmful remarks about the Holocaust. I would like to hear that from him, since he weighed in on the matter in the first place.

I am a Jewish Christian in the process of becoming a Catholic, so this is very tender to me. However, the message I see Rome as sending is that the tent must be big enough for all and we do not want to start a series of split-offs, a la Protestantism, ad infinitum. With that, I heartily concur, and am grateful.
 
Edited to add: I think one has to be very careful when they start saying the bible has to be read in context. That whole idea has opened a can of worms so ugly as to justify all manner of sin these days, such as homosexuality.
Click to expand...
Just to completely clarify my meaning so that I am not misunderstood when I speak of reading contextually I am speaking of reading contextually versus fundamentally. For instance. We call our priests Father. A Fundamentalist that reads the Bible fundamentally as opposed to contextually believes this to be a sin as there is the verse in scripture, “Call no one father before I.”

Another example would be the whole creation story. In the words of Robin Williams so can believe that this could be a metaphor for the Big Bang and a Fundamentalist would say “No, God just went click.”

OK, as far as my fourth question where would be if Peter and Paul could not have handled change. Well Peter was a fishermen who probably never dreamed of becoming the first Pope until Jesus cured his mother-in-law. However, I don’t know of many men who would follow anyone for curing their mother-in-law. 😛 Sorry poor attempt at humor I think it is needed at this point.

Paul was originally Saul who stoned St Steven to death. It was only through a massive epiphany and change brought by God did Paul become one of the greatest Christians of early times.

That was what I meant by what if Peter and Paul couldn’t deal with change.

God bless and thank you all for giving me your stances on VII,
 
Frankly, I am at an utter loss as to why Bishop Williamson should be punished or chastized. All he ever did was give his private opinion on matters that have nothing to do with faith and morals. As to his views on the holocaust, let us bear in mind that there are a growing number of people who question the 6 million number. I used to think that it was lunacy to doubt the supposed holocaust until I looked into it myself. Just looking at the evidence in an impartial manner sans emotion can do wonders to opening the doors of perception. Consider the facts. The Jewish population recorded by the best reputable census just before the “holocaust” was at or around 15,000,000. Another census taken just right after WWII, showed the population to be a few hundred thousand less, not 6 million. Reputable investigators, (some of them Jews) have gone over to the death camps and have found zero evidence for gas chambers. Some of these people have paid a heavy price for not caving in to the holocaust myth. What would they have to gain? And please for the love of God, let no one insult Bishop Williamson anymore by casting aspersions on his intelligence just because some disagree with his views. If one looks at the interview given by the Swedish man,it becomes apparrent that the good Bishop has given a great deal of thought on these matters. He is not one to make rash statements. By the way, where is everyones ire and indignation when it comes to the real culprits who are doing serious harm to the Church? The American Catholic Church has become a nesting groung for pedophile priests and faithless Bishops who cosset and protect them. And you folks talk of “chastising” a man who has faithfully adhered to the teachings of the Church whole an entire, a man who is striving to live in a holy manner? Please people, check into things before you make judgements. Do not judge according to appearance but judge righteous judgement. Peace.
 
Re: the post above – Wow. No evidence of gas chambers? Faulty statistics saying that the Jewish population had declined by only a few hundred thousand – as if there were no babies born in the interim? Calling Bishop Williamson a “man who has faithfully adhered to the teachings of the Church whole and entire” while his very ordination as a bishop was in grave disobedience to the successor of Peter? Wow.
:hmmm:
 
surritter said:
Re: the post above – Wow. No evidence of gas chambers? Faulty statistics saying that the Jewish population had declined by only a few hundred thousand – as if there were no babies born in the interim? Calling Bishop Williamson a “man who has faithfully adhered to the teachings of the Church whole and entire” while his very ordination as a bishop was in grave disobedience to the successor of Peter? Wow.
:hmmm:
Click to expand...
I have to echo your sentiment! Wow! Ignorance abounds!
 
The problem is that those who deny the number of Jews killed are usually less than pro-Jewish. wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_Jews_died_in_the_Holocaust

It isn’t a question of mere historical accuracy. Census numbers as “proof” of your family still being alive when you know how they were exterminated because you were there would lead anyone to be righteously indignant. The number of eyewitness survivors are being reduced daily due to age and those left must vociferously respond to these allegations. If your opinion leads to scandal, then your are morally obliged to refrain from giving it. WHY put this stumbling block in the way of our Jewish brothers (Rom 14:13)?

As far as SSPX, wouldn’t more “conservative” be better than less “conservative”? Liberality meant to accept or tolerate sinful actions would put the Church in the position of being “worldly”, a proposition it could not possibly adopt. It isn’t even a left or right issue, it is either more orthodox or less orthodox. We either conform to God’s Church or we reject the teaching. More people being Catholic is good, changing the Church just to accept more people, especially those who refuse to repent of serious sin, is contrary to God’s revelation. And in the end is not loving if that instruction leads someone to perdition.
 
To Surritter andTsuwano,
Wow? Seriously folks is that all I get is a wow? Let me pose to you a question. Have you looked into this matter on your own and made up your own judgement on the matter? If you haven’t, then uttering a harmless expletive hardly qualifies as a informed and logical refutation. You refer to faulty stastitics. Look, the so called “faulty” stastistics can be found in the jewish encyclopedia, not in Nazi journals. Obviously there were babies that were born in the interim, but think about it; do you honestly think that there were nigh unto 6 million babies that were born in a period of several years? That is a biological impossibility. Those were the baby boomer years indeed, but they weren’t that booming. As to Bishop Williamson, let us not confuse his illicit inordination, an event that happened some years ago, with his character. And his character has been shown to be irreproachable. Can anyone accuse him of sowing heresies in the Church as the Novus Ordo Bishops are so inclined to do? Can anyone accuse him of abberrant and dangerous behaviour? But there are many priests running around these days who are defiling childrens bodies and poisoning the minds of their parishoners with teachings that are dangerous to souls. Why not direct your ire and wrath against them? Why instead are you on a rampage against a man who was ordained in good faith(and I say this because Lefebre was going according to canon law in ordaining Bishops in times of crisis) a man who according to the best of his abilities is seeking to help restore all things in Christ? Again I say, do not judge according to appearance. Things are not what they seem in this time of great deceit. Peace.
 
I was actually reading your reply with a very sympathetic ear (OK, eye) until I got to your defense of Williamson’s ordination, saying that it was OK because “Lefebre was going according to canon law in ordaining Bishops in times of crisis…”

There was very clear direction from the Pope himself that the ordinations were not to occur, and Lefebvre put himself above the authority of the Pope to proceed.

Shall I conclude that you believe the chair of Peter to be vacant?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top