|
Post by Stephen on Oct 11, 2021 13:46:20 GMT
I have on occasion attended SSPX masses in Dublin and Paris. They maintain a rather nuanced position regarding the pope. They have portraits of the reigning pope on public display and include him in the Canon of the mass. The society also backs any traditional thing the Vatican says or devotional exercise it may promote. In practical terms they ignore much of what comes out of Rome for obvious reasons. My term practical Sede Vacantinist is meant to cover that . Its hard defending an institution you ignore for most of the time. But then the institution shouldn't be undermining much of traditional belief either. That's a terrible dilemma for traditional catholics. I think the Society manages to keep a delicate balance that many ordinary traditionalists don't in their interactions on line. I am not referring to anyone here by the way. They are a body of clergy who realise the risks of formally denouncing a pope as illegitimate or heretical. I would hope to fall into the SSPX camp walking the tightrope. How would you describe yourself?
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Oct 11, 2021 14:11:00 GMT
The World needs the Pope as a Ship needs it Captain.
In the case of the death penalty it is very clear the current Holy Father is alone on this issue.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_capital_punishment
You forget I am being faithful to more than 260 popes since St. Peter that taught this and are still with us in Heaven (Hope they are).
Mal can a Pope be wrong? _______ I presume you believe in slavery because St. Paul told slaves to obey their masters? _______ Mal can a Pope be wrong? Interest if you react to the last 2000 years of teaching vs Pope Francis?
On the slavery question: Everyone is a slave to something. The slavery topic is interesting one and worth discussing. Maybe on another discussionIn my view, you are usurping the Pope's privileged role as the interpreter of Tradition. Every schismatic in Church history believed they were defending the true faith against apostasy. I'm not denying there are legitimate criticisms to be made about Pope Francis. But I think that, when he clearly indicates a belief should be held by the faithful, we are obliged to hold it. Just my view. I'm not a theologian.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Oct 11, 2021 14:44:58 GMT
The World needs the Pope as a Ship needs it Captain.
In the case of the death penalty it is very clear the current Holy Father is alone on this issue.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_capital_punishment
You forget I am being faithful to more than 260 popes since St. Peter that taught this and are still with us in Heaven (Hope they are).
Mal can a Pope be wrong? _______ I presume you believe in slavery because St. Paul told slaves to obey their masters? _______ Mal can a Pope be wrong? Interest if you react to the last 2000 years of teaching vs Pope Francis?
On the slavery question: Everyone is a slave to something. The slavery topic is interesting one and worth discussing. Maybe on another discussionIn my view, you are usurping the Pope's privileged role as the interpreter of Tradition. Every schismatic in Church history believed they were defending the true faith against apostasy. I'm not denying there are legitimate criticisms to be made about Pope Francis. But I think that, when he clearly indicates a belief should be held by the faithful, we are obliged to hold it. Just my view. I'm not a theologian. This is mind-blowing to me and a complete misunderstanding of the Pope's role as the guardian of Tradition. I'll ignore schismatic comment as it is ridiculous to say im schismatic and used to silence Orthdox positions today. So you're saying I have to listen to one modern opinion over 2000 years worth of teaching by 100s of Popes, Saints and Fathers of the Church! I have left a few quotes from a Pope, the Council of Trent and a great Saint. Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life. (Pius XII, 1952). Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment, such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. The purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives” Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent Now every person is related to the entire society as a part to the whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since ‘a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump’ (1 Cor. 5:6).” (Summa Theologiae, II) Does the Death Penalty Conflict with traditional Catholic Principles? sspx.org/en/news-events/news/does-death-penalty-conflict-traditional-catholic-principles
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Oct 11, 2021 15:22:21 GMT
What about making a thread separate on SSPX and their defence of core Catholic faith and morals?
Too much in this thread (five pages!) for a catch up for anyone missing last days contributions. The news from France is quite apart from the troubles the faithful with and in SSPX are enduring.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Oct 11, 2021 15:34:49 GMT
This is mind-blowing to me and a complete misunderstanding of the Pope's role as the guardian of Tradition. I'll ignore schismatic comment as it is ridiculous to say im schismatic and used to silence Orthdox positions today. So you're saying I have to listen to one modern opinion over 2000 years worth of teaching by 100s of Popes, Saints and Fathers of the Church! I have left a few quotes from a Pope, the Council of Trent and a great Saint. Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life. (Pius XII, 1952). Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment, such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. The purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives” Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent Now every person is related to the entire society as a part to the whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since ‘a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump’ (1 Cor. 5:6).” (Summa Theologiae, II) Does the Death Penalty Conflict with traditional Catholic Principles? sspx.org/en/news-events/news/does-death-penalty-conflict-traditional-catholic-principlesI never meant to suggest you were schismatic. I was simply saying that schismatics have claimed to be defending the faith of the past against innovation. That is why the Reformation was called the Reformation. I don't think Pope Francis's position on the death penalty negates previous statements of the Magisterium, but recognizes rather a changed social situation. The death pnealty should not be necessary in our day. I struggled with this teaching when it came out. I even read a whole book about it, Edward Feser's "By Man Shall his Blood Be Shed". As much as I admire Dr. Feser I think I have to go with the Pope, who is after all the successor of Peter. In case anyone is interested, I wrote a two-part review of the book. I was closer to your position when I wrote this, but I've changed my mind. irishpapist.blogspot.com/2018/04/a-review-of-by-man-shall-his-blood-be.htmlirishpapist.blogspot.com/2018/04/my-review-of-by-man-shall-his-blood-be.htmlOnce again we are veering off-topic, for which I apologize...
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Oct 11, 2021 16:06:20 GMT
This is mind-blowing to me and a complete misunderstanding of the Pope's role as the guardian of Tradition. I'll ignore schismatic comment as it is ridiculous to say im schismatic and used to silence Orthdox positions today. So you're saying I have to listen to one modern opinion over 2000 years worth of teaching by 100s of Popes, Saints and Fathers of the Church! I have left a few quotes from a Pope, the Council of Trent and a great Saint. Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life. (Pius XII, 1952). Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment, such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. The purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives” Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent Now every person is related to the entire society as a part to the whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since ‘a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump’ (1 Cor. 5:6).” (Summa Theologiae, II) Does the Death Penalty Conflict with traditional Catholic Principles? sspx.org/en/news-events/news/does-death-penalty-conflict-traditional-catholic-principlesI never meant to suggest you were schismatic. I was simply saying that schismatics have claimed to be defending the faith of the past against innovation. That is why the Reformation was called the Reformation. I don't think Pope Francis's position on the death penalty negates previous statements of the Magisterium, but recognizes rather a changed social situation. The death pnealty should not be necessary in our day. I struggled with this teaching when it came out. I even read a whole book about it, Edward Feser's "By Man Shall his Blood Be Shed". As much as I admire Dr. Feser I think I have to go with the Pope, who is after all the successor of Peter. In case anyone is interested, I wrote a two-part review of the book. I was closer to your position when I wrote this, but I've changed my mind. irishpapist.blogspot.com/2018/04/a-review-of-by-man-shall-his-blood-be.htmlirishpapist.blogspot.com/2018/04/my-review-of-by-man-shall-his-blood-be.htmlOnce again we are veering off-topic, for which I apologize... "The death penalty should not be necessary in our day." this is a fair point and I think this was JP2s. "the Church’s traditional teaching which states that the death penalty can be legitimate in some cases is irreformable dogma. To deny this or assert the contrary is formally heretical. Catholics remain obliged to believe and accept this doctrine with firm faith regardless of any changes to the Catechism.” catholicherald.co.uk/pope-francis-changes-catechism-to-say-death-penalty-inadmissible/I also read that book and think we may have argued about this in the past. I also apologize about the topic and
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Oct 11, 2021 16:07:27 GMT
What about making a thread separate on SSPX and their defence of core Catholic faith and morals? Too much in this thread (five pages!) for a catch up for anyone missing last days contributions. The news from France is quite apart from the troubles the faithful with and in SSPX are enduring. Good idea
|
|
|
Post by cato on Oct 12, 2021 13:21:53 GMT
]How would you describe yourself?[/quote]
A struggling sinner. In Dublin I have the luxury of attending the Latin Mass chaplaincy which is orthodox and in full communion with Peter. That's my good fortune and I hope it can continue.
Many other catholics haven't that luxury so I can see why they attend the SSPX chapels. I probably would if I lived elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Oct 13, 2021 21:07:31 GMT
]How would you describe yourself? A struggling sinner. In Dublin I have the luxury of attending the Latin Mass chaplaincy which is orthodox and in full communion with Peter. That's my good fortune and I hope it can continue. Many other catholics haven't that luxury so I can see why they attend the SSPX chapels. I probably would if I lived elsewhere. [/quote] Thank God for the FSSP and so many more! I've been a member of the Confraternity of St Peter for 15 years, still being not a traditionalist per se but loving and benefiting from their works. (I also belong to other Catholic bodies.) More on the SSPX on the other thread?
|
|
eala
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by eala on Mar 9, 2023 20:12:20 GMT
Sorry, but "one moment in its history" strikes me as an enormous cop-out. This has been going on for decades that we know of, and there's hardly any reason to think it somehow began in the 20th century. St Peter Damian denounced it in the Book of Gomorrah in 1056. I understand that reaction, but I've never really questioned the legitimacy of the institution because of the sex abuse scandals. I grew up in the nineties when this was all coming out. It never even affected my thinking when I was eventually coming to believe in the Church's claims in my late twenties, early thirties. To me, an analogy would be to say that we must ask at some point whether the gravity of governmental crimes means we should abolish, not just this or that government, but government in general, and embrace anarchism. That would seem an overreaction to me. I'm not at all trying to diminish the gravity of the matter or the failures on the part of the Church. I'm genuinely curious why not. I grew up at the same time as you. First fridays, devotions, rosary, altar boy the whole kit and caboodle. The scandals absolutely affected my thinking. I can still see Brendan Smyth's leering face on the newspapers. You make the analogy of Catholic church is to government. Let's say the church was more like Anglo-Irish bank. Corruption in a particular bank is not an argument for doing away with banking as such, but it is an argument for not investing in Anglo.
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Mar 9, 2023 20:40:32 GMT
I understand that reaction, but I've never really questioned the legitimacy of the institution because of the sex abuse scandals. I grew up in the nineties when this was all coming out. It never even affected my thinking when I was eventually coming to believe in the Church's claims in my late twenties, early thirties. To me, an analogy would be to say that we must ask at some point whether the gravity of governmental crimes means we should abolish, not just this or that government, but government in general, and embrace anarchism. That would seem an overreaction to me. I'm not at all trying to diminish the gravity of the matter or the failures on the part of the Church. I'm genuinely curious why not. I grew up at the same time as you. First fridays, devotions, rosary, altar boy the whole kit and caboodle. The scandals absolutely affected my thinking. I can still see Brendan Smyth's leering face on the newspapers. You make the analogy of Catholic church is to government. Let's say the church was more like Anglo-Irish bank. Corruption in a particular bank is not an argument for doing away with banking as such, but it is an argument for not investing in Anglo. Psychologically being disgusted is one thing, the only natural response, yet to connect the Catholic Church as a whole with the sometimes absolutely horrendous dealings with this stench would be wrong always simply by logic. Even if you "felt" inclined to protest due to this, there can never be really any other way out than to be an apostate by your own will. No one can blame others for their own choices. If it was 99,9 percent devilish members (which it isn´t) then there still was one honest man in a thousand. So that it even then comes down to the biblical dialogue, on what whould happen if there were only twenty... only ten.. righteous men left in the fallen city. Not throwing out everyone with the dish water.
|
|
eala
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by eala on Mar 10, 2023 14:28:54 GMT
I'm genuinely curious why not. I grew up at the same time as you. First fridays, devotions, rosary, altar boy the whole kit and caboodle. The scandals absolutely affected my thinking. I can still see Brendan Smyth's leering face on the newspapers. You make the analogy of Catholic church is to government. Let's say the church was more like Anglo-Irish bank. Corruption in a particular bank is not an argument for doing away with banking as such, but it is an argument for not investing in Anglo. Psychologically being disgusted is one thing, the only natural response, yet to connect the Catholic Church as a whole with the sometimes absolutely horrendous dealings with this stench would be wrong always simply by logic. Even if you "felt" inclined to protest due to this, there can never be really any other way out than to be an apostate by your own will. No one can blame others for their own choices. If it was 99,9 percent devilish members (which it isn´t) then there still was one honest man in a thousand. So that it even then comes down to the biblical dialogue, on what whould happen if there were only twenty... only ten.. righteous men left in the fallen city. Not throwing out everyone with the dish water. Has there been any bucketing to speak of? Is the baby still alive in the miasma. Maybe priests and bishops have been bucketing out, maybe they've been donning sackcloths and ashes and striking in protest, and demanding atonement for lives destroyed, but I haven't heard much about it. Clearly, they ARE 'connected' as a whole. These were Catholic priests abusing and Catholic hierarchy looking the other way or colluding, and Catholic congregations supporting the institutions through continued attendance. Aren't we told the Church is one body? In a human body rot might be found in the arm, leg or bowels, but it's still the same body, unattended it spreads and kills. Who knows how far the rot goes. Does the church including rank and file have the stomach to look in to the rotten abyss. Apostasy, a cordon sanitaire might indeed be the way to go. Imagine a boycott, or a walkout, or if no one turned up on Sunday. At the very least conscientious objection—Catholics at all levels refusing to support the organisation until there is atonement. Wouldn't the need for a thorough diagnostic be clear if it was any other organisation, the Quakers or some secular organisation say? This is a hierarchical institution after all and if those at the head of the organisation don't shine the surgical light on it and excoriate it, if it doesn't demand and demand and demand atonement aren't they tacitly agreeing with it and letting it fester. As for bathwater, and blaming etc, one honest man in a thousand etc mightn't the same argument be made for any organisation exhibiting sociopathic behaviour? No-one can blame individual members of an organisation responsible for their choices — is that true though? Following orders and similar pleading doesn't wash anymore. What about holding those who hold the purse strings of the organisation, or those who fill the coffers, accountable to those wronged.
|
|
|
Post by Antaine on Mar 14, 2023 12:36:43 GMT
Well let's get to the point of the issue first of all. It wasn't just pedophila, was it? In the majority of cases it was homosexuals, or perhaps bisexuals at least. The majority of these stories are about priests (men) abusing young boys; and some boys not so young, thereby destroying the argument that it was simply pedophilia, and so somehow it doesn't count as real homosexuality. Or worse, that it was brought on by celibacy - you could call this killing 2 birds with 1 stone.
I have heard many things about the LGBT community over the years, and a lot of it I doubted and assumed was just people throwing dirt in a desperate attempt to win over people who failed to see the abnormalities of LGBT on a surface level. However, I have seen it with my own eyes, and even heard with my own ears, the sort of things that go on in that "community". This is a group of people that is damaged. I don't say that to be cruel, but it is simply factual. There is a reason they behave the same way in many respects, and it isn't an accident.
1] Their weird attempts at constantly drawing attention to themselves, to the point of sometimes being unashamedly narcistic - and yes, homosexuals who are narcistic are easily the most vile I have ever met. It appears they either desperately, subtly seek for approval, or else they go all in on only needing their own, resulting in their narcissism.
2] Their hypersexuality even when in relationships - sometimes telling their partner, sometimes not, because "he's probably doing it too anyway." That's one I had the honour of hearing myself. The LGBT community often mourns over the days of how "unfairly" their predecessors were slandered as "perverts" and "pedophiles". What a surprise, it turns out there was something to all that. Now, it isn't to say all LGBT people have these inclinations, or that those who do will act on them. However, it is clear that is is an especially large problem within their group. At least, I don't know of any other group that has worked so hard to normalise pedophilia, or to drag children to sexually grotesque displays in the name of being "open-minded".
More often than not, the LGBT person has (usually more in the case of men) been sexually abused as a child themselves. That trauma, no doubt, is the root of a lot of their unusual or outright bizarre behaviour. The scared, hurt child is still there, although forced to grow up. How does one grow up with such an experience as a child or young person? With great difficulty, evidently. For this reason, I sympathise with LGBT people for what happened to them; but I will never tolerate how many choose to act out as a result of that abuse. We don't need another cycle of such abuse, and we especially don't need it being perpetrated by those who have power.
Coming back to the Church. Yes, there was obviously more to it than the abuse, namely the cover-up. You are correct, the Church must take responsibility for the hiding and moving around of these predators. However, it also well known that there is a sizable number of clergy hostile towards the Church, namely homosexuals. Will these men cooperate in exposing the defilers? Or could it be that they have a vested interest in that not happening?
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Mar 14, 2023 13:52:09 GMT
Well let's get to the point of the issue first of all. It wasn't just pedophila, was it? In the majority of cases it was homosexuals, or perhaps bisexuals at least. The majority of these stories are about priests (men) abusing young boys; and some boys not so young, thereby destroying the argument that it was simply pedophilia, and so somehow it doesn't count as real homosexuality. Or worse, that it was brought on by celibacy - you could call this killing 2 birds with 1 stone. I have heard many things about the LGBT community over the years, and a lot of it I doubted and assumed was just people throwing dirt in a desperate attempt to win over people who failed to see the abnormalities of LGBT on a surface level. However, I have seen it with my own eyes, and even heard with my own ears, the sort of things that go on in that "community". This is a group of people that is damaged. I don't say that to be cruel, but it is simply factual. There is a reason they behave the same way in many respects, and it isn't an accident. 1]Their weird attempts at constantly drawing attention to themselves, to the point of sometimes being unashamedly narcistic - and yes, homosexuals who are narcistic are easily the most vile I have ever met. It appears they either desperately, subtly seek for approval, or else they go all in on only needing their own, resulting in their narcissism. 2]Their hypersexuality even when in relationships - sometimes telling their partner, sometimes not, because "he's probably doing it too anyway." That's one I had the honour of hearing myself. The LGBT community often mourns over the days of how "unfairly" their predecessors were slandered as "perverts" and "pedophiles". What a surprise, it turns out there was something to all that. Now, it isn't to say all LGBT people have these inclinations, or that those who do will act on them. However, it is clear that is is an especially large problem within their group. At least, I don't know of any other group that has worked so hard to normalise pedophilia, or to drag children to sexually grotesque displays in the name of being "open-minded". More often than not, the LGBT person has (usually more in the case of men) been sexually abused as a child themselves. That trauma, no doubt, is the root of a lot of their unusual or outright bizarre behaviour. The scared, hurt child is still there, although forced to grow up. How does one grow up with such an experience as a child or young person? With great difficulty, evidently. For this reason, I sympathise with LGBT people for what happened to them; but I will never tolerate how many choose to act out as a result of that abuse. We don't need another cycle of such abuse, and we especially don't need it being perpetrated by those who have power. Coming back to the Church. Yes, there was obviously more to it than the abuse, namely the cover-up. You are correct, the Church must take responsibility for the hiding and moving around of these predators. However, it also well known that there is a sizable number of clergy hostile towards the Church, namely homosexuals. Will these men cooperate in exposing the defilers? Or could it be that they have a vested interest in that not happening? I don't think it can be doubted at this stage that there really is a "lavender mafia" operating in the Church.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Mar 15, 2023 9:54:21 GMT
Psychologically being disgusted is one thing, the only natural response, yet to connect the Catholic Church as a whole with the sometimes absolutely horrendous dealings with this stench would be wrong always simply by logic. Even if you "felt" inclined to protest due to this, there can never be really any other way out than to be an apostate by your own will. No one can blame others for their own choices. If it was 99,9 percent devilish members (which it isn´t) then there still was one honest man in a thousand. So that it even then comes down to the biblical dialogue, on what whould happen if there were only twenty... only ten.. righteous men left in the fallen city. Not throwing out everyone with the dish water. Has there been any bucketing to speak of? Is the baby still alive in the miasma. Maybe priests and bishops have been bucketing out, maybe they've been donning sackcloths and ashes and striking in protest, and demanding atonement for lives destroyed, but I haven't heard much about it. Clearly, they ARE 'connected' as a whole. These were Catholic priests abusing and Catholic hierarchy looking the other way or colluding, and Catholic congregations supporting the institutions through continued attendance. Aren't we told the Church is one body? In a human body rot might be found in the arm, leg or bowels, but it's still the same body, unattended it spreads and kills. Who knows how far the rot goes. Does the church including rank and file have the stomach to look in to the rotten abyss. Apostasy, a cordon sanitaire might indeed be the way to go. Imagine a boycott, or a walkout, or if no one turned up on Sunday. At the very least conscientious objection—Catholics at all levels refusing to support the organisation until there is atonement. Wouldn't the need for a thorough diagnostic be clear if it was any other organisation, the Quakers or some secular organisation say? This is a hierarchical institution after all and if those at the head of the organisation don't shine the surgical light on it and excoriate it, if it doesn't demand and demand and demand atonement aren't they tacitly agreeing with it and letting it fester. As for bathwater, and blaming etc, one honest man in a thousand etc mightn't the same argument be made for any organisation exhibiting sociopathic behaviour? No-one can blame individual members of an organisation responsible for their choices — is that true though? Following orders and similar pleading doesn't wash anymore. What about holding those who hold the purse strings of the organisation, or those who fill the coffers, accountable to those wronged. Eala makes some excellent points. There is no point in minimising the horror of abuses which seem to be ongoing in papal circles. We need a major reform and clean up . Perhaps a decade of sackcloth and ashes and mass episcopal resignations. Lough Derg in Donegal is a great traditional site for public penance. Instead we have been subjected to Synodial navel gazing which ignores this festering sore. Many of the Synodial fathers were or are involved in serious cover up. It is a gigantic exercise in deflecting from arguably the greatest church scandal in modern times. It has led to the loss in faith for millions. Woe to those who would undermine the faith of the little ones.....
|
|