|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 14, 2023 17:10:59 GMT
Come again? Francis has unabashedly and nakedly exercised more "authority" than any other Pope in at least the past 100 years, and I don't think he is of the impression that his followers cede it to him. His is a papacy of basically "my way or the highway". I wouldn't call any other Pope of the 20th or 21st century especially authoritarian. Far from it. Especially considering that the main thing the dubia cardinals and their sympathizers are pitching a fit about is that he won't "put his foot down", give dictatorial black and white answers, and mercilessly stamp out what they (erroneously) think is "heresy". As for TC, which Traditionalists weirdly consider a "crackdown", all he did was follow up on Pope Benedict's instructions to evaluate the project at a later date. He did, found it to be a dismal failure, and reverted to the situation that was in force under Pope John Paul II. Hardly a "crackdown". As for your curiously formulated "thought experiment", it's not just about sexuality, or even primarily about it. Sexuality is just the tip of a much larger iceberg, consisting mainly of clericalism and reactionary politics. See the Quiet Revolution in Quebec. They weren't waving any rainbow flags around. The TLM movement started primarily as a reaction against the condemnation of antisemitism by the Second Vatican Council. The core that gathered around Lefebvre were mostly Vichy sympathizers and followers of various reactionary movements. The TLM was merely a flag to rally around. Even if the TLM movement got started that way --- which I challenge (so far as I'm aware, Fr Gommar DePauw wasn't an antisemite or any sort of political reactionary, ditto early TLM defenders such as Fr James Wathen, Patrick Henry Omlor et al) --- that's not the mainstream of thought among its adherents. They go to the TLM for reasons of faith, not politics. And far from being a "dismal failure", the TLM has flourished practically everywhere it's ever been introduced. In fact, that's the whole "problem", as Francis sees it --- it attracts too many people, it's too successful, it wins too many minds and hearts. Pretty pathetic when you have to hide it away in some obscure location and not even allow it to be publicized in parish bulletins or on their websites. Besides, it won't work, TLM adherents are very good at maintaining their own information networks. And requiring new priests to get permission directly from Rome to offer the TLM (so much for subsidiarity and the bishop being the authority in his own diocese), a permission that in actual practice is summarily denied, well, that speaks for itself. Francis sees a future where an intensely dedicated core of traditionalists will gain adherents and churn out vocations that much of the rest of the Church lacks, and he's determined to stamp it out. Pretty authoritarian. (He can't do much about people having large families, another thing at which TLM adherents are pretty good.) Quebec was an edge case. Fast-forwarding to today, as I said, take issues of sexuality, marriage, and gender totally out of the equation, and see if there is anything in the Church that gives anyone any real problems. "Clericalism and reactionary politics" might be an issue in a place such as Poland --- another "edge case" --- but not in most countries. The Catholic religion isn't a particularly hard religion to live by, if you remove issues of sexuality, marriage, and gender. The most that is asked of you, is to carve out two hours of your week for Mass on Sunday (assuming 30 minutes to get there, 60 minutes for the Mass, and 30 minutes to get back home), to fast two days a year (and that's a mitigated fast, one full meal and two half-meals) and abstain from meat six other days a year (at least in the US), and to go to confession once a year. That's not a difficult religion. There are religions that forbid their adherents to drink, dance, wear makeup, wear clothes that don't fulfill strict modesty norms, eat pork, get blood transfusions, drink coffee or tea, even have friendships with people outside their fold. Catholicism is nothing like that.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Oct 15, 2023 1:39:15 GMT
It's as if traditionalists are acting like modernists who question authority while modernists act like traditionalists who acknowledge a traditional authority that resembles a monarchy.
As for revolutionary changes, that reminds me of Jesus who dined with tax collectors, harlots, etc., and even the equivalent of undesirables in society, with Pharisees and others being critical in turn.
This is similar to what happened in other threads, with questions about the Holy Spirit and the move to the OF, and then the references to the Pentecost and a multiplicity of languages.
|
|
|
Post by iagosan on Oct 16, 2023 6:36:45 GMT
It's as if traditionalists are acting like modernists who question authority while modernists act like traditionalists who acknowledge a traditional authority that resembles a monarchy. As for revolutionary changes, that reminds me of Jesus who dined with tax collectors, harlots, etc., and even the equivalent of undesirables in society, with Pharisees and others being critical in turn. This is similar to what happened in other threads, with questions about the Holy Spirit and the move to the OF, and then the references to the Pentecost and a multiplicity of languages. Oh yes "revolutionary changes" are in the air!
At the Synod press briefing on Saturday October 14th Catholic journalist Diane Montagna asked two very probing questions of panel members who were at the press conference.
Here they are in transcript. (For some reason the posted information has now disappeared. I will attempt to re post in a different format):
(So it appears that there will be no transparency regarding any of the discussion )
Montagna then stated the following: "Ruffini told me afterward that it “makes no sense” to provide this breakdown. However, if a 2/3 majority is needed to pass, & on a certain controversial point the bishop-members vote 50% yea & 50% nay, the non-bishop vote could push the proposal through."
So how precisely would this be a Synod of Bishops if the laity effectively have the power to override them? Wouldn’t this undermine the office of governance proper to the bishops? And what credibility would the Synod on Synodality have, given such a lack of transparency?
In such a decentralised, non clerical church, all baptized persons are equal and no one is above another, so my “God experience” is as legitimate as the pope's “God experience”
i.e. “I can say things about God that have a deeper meaning, than anything anyone else can say including Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Fathers of the Church”
It is starting to look like a new religion is being created with a veneer of “Roman Catholicism” here and such apostasy and schismatic behaviour should be called to account as the eternal fate of each and everyone's immortal soul is in the balance at the moment with this understanding.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Oct 16, 2023 23:39:13 GMT
It's as if traditionalists are acting like modernists who question authority while modernists act like traditionalists who acknowledge a traditional authority that resembles a monarchy. As for revolutionary changes, that reminds me of Jesus who dined with tax collectors, harlots, etc., and even the equivalent of undesirables in society, with Pharisees and others being critical in turn. This is similar to what happened in other threads, with questions about the Holy Spirit and the move to the OF, and then the references to the Pentecost and a multiplicity of languages. Oh yes "revolutionary changes" are in the air!
At the Synod press briefing on Saturday October 14th Catholic journalist Diane Montagna asked two very probing questions of panel members who were at the press conference.
Here they are in transcript. (For some reason the posted information has now disappeared. I will attempt to re post in a different format):
(So it appears that there will be no transparency regarding any of the discussion )
Montagna then stated the following: "Ruffini told me afterward that it “makes no sense” to provide this breakdown. However, if a 2/3 majority is needed to pass, & on a certain controversial point the bishop-members vote 50% yea & 50% nay, the non-bishop vote could push the proposal through."
So how precisely would this be a Synod of Bishops if the laity effectively have the power to override them? Wouldn’t this undermine the office of governance proper to the bishops? And what credibility would the Synod on Synodality have, given such a lack of transparency?
In such a decentralised, non clerical church, all baptized persons are equal and no one is above another, so my “God experience” is as legitimate as the pope's “God experience”
i.e. “I can say things about God that have a deeper meaning, than anything anyone else can say including Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Fathers of the Church”
It is starting to look like a new religion is being created with a veneer of “Roman Catholicism” here and such apostasy and schismatic behaviour should be called to account as the eternal fate of each and everyone's immortal soul is in the balance at the moment with this understanding.
Modernism at work.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 24, 2023 17:55:50 GMT
|
|