Author Topic: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?  (Read 3132 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline forlorn

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1534
  • Reputation: +618/-928
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?
« Reply #90 on: September 06, 2019, 04:39:19 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • I have read the entire thread, up till this comment.  I haven't read the rest.

    But I find the last sentence the most interesting.

    The OP deals with a variety of options a Catholic of good will could take to deal with this crisis.

    But it seems like a *person* of good will could just as much conclude any of the following.

    "Maybe this crisis with the magisterium shows that magisteriums are defectible, and that Eastern Orthodoxy (a Church that is much less reliant on magisterium as a source of authority) is really the Church that Christ founded.

    "Maybe neither side was right in 1054, and Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy are actually branches of the true Church."

    "Maybe all this stuff really points to the idea that Sola Scriptura has to be true, because all other authorities have failed."

    I'm wondering, and I'm especially curious for the OP's imput here, but also anyone else's, will a person of good will even necessarily be lead to one of the Catholic positions, and if so, why?

    (To be clear, I obviously think Catholicism is correct or I wouldn't be here, but I have a hard time believing that everyone of good will ends up there, doubly so in the current situation.)
    Yeah idk, the Crisis has left us in a real mess. It's impossible to try and convert people to Catholicism when I basically have to claim to be more Catholic than the pope, which they (fairly) consider to be utterly ridiculous. I also have to try and explain why the Church post-V2 is contradicting itself and its pre-V2 tradition, and how that doesn't contradict indefectibility when I'm not even certain on the answer to that myself.

    Someone could quite fairly call me a hypocrite - saying that I can't even explain my own position fully. And I can't. But for me it's really a case of, even during the confusion and absurdity of the Crisis, I still think Catholicism has less problems in its positions than Orthodoxy or Protestantism, or any other religion for that matter. Protestants can't even explain how they know the Bible is infallible - it was the Church that decided which books were gospel, which books were apocryphal, etc. Protestants can't tell you why the Gospel of Thomas isn't in their Bible but the Gospel of John is. Orthodoxy can't tell you how they know a council is ecumenical or not. They quite literally can't even explain their rules of faith. At least we can still explain how we know what is gospel and what isn't, and what is dogma and what isn't.

    Of course, attacking logical problems with other denominations while being unable to explain all the problems with my own is not conducive to successful conversion. In my own mind I chalk the problems with the Crisis to - "We're on the eve of either the Great Chastisement or the End Times, it's meant to be a time of confusion and apostasy where nothing goes as normal" and hope that I live long enough to see the problems resolved and explained, but that's a lame and unconvincing explanation to give to a non-Catholic in a debate.

    Online ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 682
    • Reputation: +131/-43
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?
    « Reply #91 on: September 06, 2019, 04:44:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yeah idk, the Crisis has left us in a real mess. It's impossible to try and convert people to Catholicism when I basically have to claim to be more Catholic than the pope, which they (fairly) consider to be utterly ridiculous. I also have to try and explain why the Church post-V2 is contradicting itself and its pre-V2 tradition, and how that doesn't contradict indefectibility when I'm not even certain on the answer to that myself.

    Someone could quite fairly call me a hypocrite - saying that I can't even explain my own position fully. And I can't. But for me it's really a case of, even during the confusion and absurdity of the Crisis, I still think Catholicism has less problems in its positions than Orthodoxy or Protestantism, or any other religion for that matter. Protestants can't even explain how they know the Bible is infallible - it was the Church that decided which books were gospel, which books were apocryphal, etc. Protestants can't tell you why the Gospel of Thomas isn't in their Bible but the Gospel of John is. Orthodoxy can't tell you how they know a council is ecumenical or not. They quite literally can't even explain their rules of faith. At least we can still explain how we know what is gospel and what isn't, and what is dogma and what isn't.

    Of course, attacking logical problems with other denominations while being unable to explain all the problems with my own is not conducive to successful conversion. In my own mind I chalk the problems with the Crisis to - "We're on the eve of either the Great Chastisement or the End Times, it's meant to be a time of confusion and apostasy where nothing goes as normal" and hope that I live long enough to see the problems resolved and explained, but that's a lame and unconvincing explanation to give to a non-Catholic in a debate.
    I more or less agree with your explanation, I go back and forth on the crisis to some degree, but even if hermeneutic of continuity is the correct answer, that's gonna be more like Cardinal Burke than Pope Francis (And yes, I'm aware I'm one of the least "consistently" traditional person on this forum, I've humorously said only Poche is more liberal than me, lol), but I have a hard time believing all the Orthodox (especially the Orthodox, less so with Protestants but there's truth there as well) are just of bad will and just stubborn, *especially* when this is the situation we have to deal with.  That probably plays into, though its not my only reason for, disagreeing with Feeney.

    Neevertheless, I do agree with you.


    Offline Alcuin

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 269
    • Reputation: +91/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?
    « Reply #92 on: September 09, 2019, 08:13:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Look, this thread was not intended to blow up into a full R&R vs. SV debate.  Just stop already.

    I lean sedeprivationist, but I readily admit that ALL the sides have issues.  SPism is the side I find to be the least problematic.  This is precisely the point of Matthew's post.

    R&R rely on the fact that not everything the Pope teaches is infallible ... but then stretch it to the limits of credibility.  It's one thing for an isolated statement in an Encyclical to be wrong, but quite another for the entire Magisterium and Universal Discipline to go corrupt with Modernism, and to be actively leading souls to hell.  If people can lose their souls by adhering to the Magisterium, then the Church's mission has failed.

    SVs rely on the fact that vacancies of the Holy See exist and that the Magisterium does not thereby go defunct.  Again, on their side, 60 years does stretch the limits of credibility.

    SPs actual hold an in-between position, that the organs of the Magisterium continue to endure but they have gone dormant (in so many words).

    But all sides are stretching the limits of credibility, because, to be perfectly frank, this entire crisis stretches the limits of Catholic credibility.
    It would explain why people are looking for explanations other than those presented above.

    Offline Hermenegild

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 585
    • Reputation: +162/-47
    Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?
    « Reply #93 on: September 10, 2019, 12:53:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • God gave us Reason, with which we exercise the virtue of Prudence. If we love the truth, acknowledge and attack error, always call a spade a spade, and "give the devil his due", there shouldn't be any huge surprises in store for us. Nor any worries that we'll go full Old Catholic when the Church is restored.
    Haven't we gone full Old Catholic already?

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1071
    • Reputation: +730/-258
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?
    « Reply #94 on: September 10, 2019, 07:20:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Haven't we gone full Old Catholic already?
    Maybe the r&r is more like the Eastern Orthodox position?  The pope doesn’t have the primacy, he has the semi-primacy where we obey him only when he is conforming to what we think is Catholic.  And when he doesn’t conform we only recognize him.  But if Bergoglio isn’t the pope then r&r is merely confused about Catholic theology and they have no obligation to obey a non-Catholic heretic. So it completely depends on whether or not Bergoglio is objectively the pope.


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4791
    • Reputation: +2831/-1298
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?
    « Reply #95 on: September 10, 2019, 07:20:58 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    It's impossible to try and convert people to Catholicism when I basically have to claim to be more Catholic than the pope, which they (fairly) consider to be utterly ridiculous.
    Forlorn, I agree that it’s almost impossible to convert novus ordo Catholics today.  However our chapel has had 20+ converts in the last few years alone (with 5 taking classes).  They are Protestants and atheists.  We’ve lost about 30 people in the last 5 years to the indult (all 30 people grew up Trad).  It’s a real shame. But the way that these new people found out about Catholicism and our chapel is truly miraculous.  God took the graces from those Trads who rejected it and gave it to others who would appreciate it.  Deo Gratias!

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9615
    • Reputation: +3802/-886
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?
    « Reply #96 on: September 10, 2019, 11:44:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Maybe the r&r is more like the Eastern Orthodox position?  The pope doesn’t have the primacy, he has the semi-primacy where we obey him only when he is conforming to what we think is Catholic.  And when he doesn’t conform we only recognize him.  But if Bergoglio isn’t the pope then r&r is merely confused about Catholic theology and they have no obligation to obey a non-Catholic heretic. So it completely depends on whether or not Bergoglio is objectively the pope.
    Actually, "r&r" is the Catholic position. We accept that the pope has the primacy per Pope Pius X, who said that upon his election, "he is instantly the true pope and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world."

    R&R are loyal to this Catholic truth as decreed by St. Pius X. R&R continue to obey him as the pope in all those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority, unless he should command something which is sinful. Never forget: "First we are under obedience to God, only then under obedience to man."

    This is Catholic.

    What is not Catholic is to believe that we cannot know what sin is, or right from wrong, or Catholic from not Catholic without a saint sitting on the throne of St. Peter. If that's EO or not I do not know, but whatever it is, it's certainly not Catholic. 

    For a small gain they travel far; for eternal life many will scarcely lift a foot from the ground. - Thomas A Kempis

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18393
    • Reputation: +10198/-4834
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?
    « Reply #97 on: September 10, 2019, 01:10:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Actually, "r&r" is the Catholic position.

    And yet many Catholics completely disagree ... as per the point Matthew's making.


    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9615
    • Reputation: +3802/-886
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?
    « Reply #98 on: September 10, 2019, 02:39:20 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • And yet many Catholics completely disagree ... as per the point Matthew's making.
    Catholics (R&R) are doing nothing more than simply applying: "First we are under obedience to God, only then under obedience to man." Without this most fundamental of Catholic principles, all Catholics have a supreme problem. But with this principle, aside from praying for the pope, Catholics actually don't do anything in regards to the conciliar popes..

    Also, Catholics, by virtue of their free will, may choose to completely disagree, but to what end? Disagreeing with this principle only leaves them with a problem which has no solution by their own choosing.


    For a small gain they travel far; for eternal life many will scarcely lift a foot from the ground. - Thomas A Kempis

    Offline Praeter

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 56
    • Reputation: +67/-20
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?
    « Reply #99 on: September 10, 2019, 05:45:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Maybe the r&r is more like the Eastern Orthodox position?  The pope doesn’t have the primacy, he has the semi-primacy where we obey him only when he is conforming to what we think is Catholic.  And when he doesn’t conform we only recognize him.  But if Bergoglio isn’t the pope then r&r is merely confused about Catholic theology and they have no obligation to obey a non-Catholic heretic. So it completely depends on whether or not Bergoglio is objectively the pope.

    It is usually conceded that R&R's disobey the Pope, but when do they actually do so?  Before this is conceded, I think we need some examples that demonstrate it.

    And let's not forget that most sedevacantists disobey/reject the revise Holy Week liturgies that were promulgated by Pius XII, the last pope they accept. How is that not recognizing and resisting Pius XII?   And every sedevacantist bishop is guilty of rejecting the teaching of Pius XII, who forbade bishops to be consecrated without a mandate.  It was already forbidden in the 1917 code.  Pius XII just attached the more sever penalty of excommunication to those broke the law.  If everything contained in an encyclical "demands assent," as the sedes always say (quoting Pius XII in Humani Generis), why did every single sede bishop, without exception, refuse to give his assent to Pius XII teaching in Ad Apostolorum Principis, which forbade bishops to be consecrated without a mandate?
    "Schismatics are in another Church even if they agree with the true Church of Christ in faith and doctrine." (Bellarmine, De Ecclesia Militante cap v)

    Offline songbird

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3498
    • Reputation: +1286/-99
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?
    « Reply #100 on: September 10, 2019, 06:19:03 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Who cares about the "ring"!  Where is the "Tiara"?  Who was the last one to be crowned with the Tiara?  Why was the Tiara let go of?  Is the Tiara in a museum?  So, who has the authority?  Very sad!  IF the pope was truly sorry, say like St. Paul, would the fruits not show?  Yes, and are those fruits showing?  No!

    Our Lady warned us that the enemy Satan, would see the dogmas destroyed.  We must be on our guard to pray the mysteries of the Rosary, the Apostles Creed and etc.
    If there is a fruit to be had, to support a true pope with authority, he would say and demand the Mass, the Mass Christ said.

    It is true, that any man can be in the popes position, question is do they have authority, and the answer right now is NO.  Their fruits publicly show this.


    Offline Bataar

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 5
    • Reputation: +3/-3
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?
    « Reply #101 on: September 11, 2019, 04:08:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It is usually conceded that R&R's disobey the Pope, but when do they actually do so?  Before this is conceded, I think we need some examples that demonstrate it.

    And let's not forget that most sedevacantists disobey/reject the revise Holy Week liturgies that were promulgated by Pius XII, the last pope they accept. How is that not recognizing and resisting Pius XII?   And every sedevacantist bishop is guilty of rejecting the teaching of Pius XII, who forbade bishops to be consecrated without a mandate.  It was already forbidden in the 1917 code.  Pius XII just attached the more sever penalty of excommunication to those broke the law.  If everything contained in an encyclical "demands assent," as the sedes always say (quoting Pius XII in Humani Generis), why did every single sede bishop, without exception, refuse to give his assent to Pius XII teaching in Ad Apostolorum Principis, which forbade bishops to be consecrated without a mandate?
    According to canon law, if a church law ceases to be working for the good of the church, that law ceases to be valid. The Holy Week changes were obviously made as a stepping stone toward the new mass. Pope Pius XII was very sick at the time as well. Put those together and it doesn't take much to say that the law is doing or did more harm than good and that we're better off going back to the old Holy Week. 
    As to bishops being consecrated without a mandate, that goes back to the same canon law. According to SVs, the church lives on through them as the NO is a new/separate church. If they did not have the ability to consecrate bishops, the church would definitely end so that law is definitely doing harm, not good so it's invalid. 

    Offline Praeter

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 56
    • Reputation: +67/-20
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?
    « Reply #102 on: September 11, 2019, 04:58:29 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • According to canon law, if a church law ceases to be working for the good of the church, that law ceases to be valid. The Holy Week changes were obviously made as a stepping stone toward the new mass. Pope Pius XII was very sick at the time as well. Put those together and it doesn't take much to say that the law is doing or did more harm than good and that we're better off going back to the old Holy Week.
    As to bishops being consecrated without a mandate, that goes back to the same canon law. According to SVs, the church lives on through them as the NO is a new/separate church. If they did not have the ability to consecrate bishops, the church would definitely end so that law is definitely doing harm, not good so it's invalid.

    Okay, just to make sure I understand what you saying.  You believe Catholics are permitted to "sift" the laws of the Church to determine for themselves which are good and which are not, and are only required to obey those that they believe are beneficial for the Church?

    And can you cite the canon from the 1917 or 1983 Code that you are referring to?
    "Schismatics are in another Church even if they agree with the true Church of Christ in faith and doctrine." (Bellarmine, De Ecclesia Militante cap v)

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4791
    • Reputation: +2831/-1298
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?
    « Reply #103 on: September 11, 2019, 07:08:53 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    The Holy Week changes were obviously made as a stepping stone toward the new mass. Pope Pius XII was very sick at the time as well. Put those together and it doesn't take much to say that the law is doing or did more harm than good and that we're better off going back to the old Holy Week.
    The Holy Week changes are not evil and they aren't good.  They just are.  The intent behind them is irrelevant, if the changes themselves aren't anti-catholic.  Example: Susan holds a grudge against her sister-in-law, Judy.  She makes a cherry pie for Judy's party, knowing that Judy is allergic to cherries and she wants to make Judy mad.  Susan's INTENTION is sinful but the cherry pie itself is not.  It's just a pie.  In the same way, the Holy Week changes were INTENDED to be a stepping stone towards modernism, so the intention is a sin.  But I don't think the changes crossed the line into anti-catholic theology or a protestant liturgy.  So the sin of intention is far greater than the actual changes.  As such, the arguments against them are over-blown.  Same goes for the 1962 missal.

    Offline Incredulous

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4871
    • Reputation: +5646/-464
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?
    « Reply #104 on: September 11, 2019, 09:56:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0




  • The Church in the 1940's under Pope Pius XII's papacy, was similar to Toledo Spain in 711.



    Like the Jews living within the Catholic city, the Pope "opened the gates" and internal attack against our Church has yet to cease.


    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16