Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33]

Author Topic: Theological argument why Francis is the pope?  (Read 15096 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SJB

Theological argument why Francis is the pope?
« Reply #160 on: November 27, 2013, 02:26:26 PM »
Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Nishant
The funny thing is Fr. Cekada rejects the Holy Week reforms made under Pope Pius XII. The argument goes that it has become harmful and the law has ceased to bind! Strange, isn't it? I think that's a nice example of sifting Papal legislation beyond anything non-sedes do.


They invoke the principle of epikeia, i.e. since Pius XII is no longer alive they make the assumption that Pius XII would have rolled back the changes upon seeing the 20/20 hindsight where they would lead.

I consider this to be a major stretch.  I like some of the changes Pius XII made, don't care for others, but I don't consider any of them to be intrinisically bad or harmful to the faith.  I doubt that Father Cekada would either; I think that they would call them "inopportune" or "less good" than the previous version but not instrinsically harmful or bad.


I think Fr Cekada points to the reform at that time as the beginning stage of the Liturgical movement that eventually brought us to the radical changes in the 1960's.  Chances are, if these were the only changes/had it stopped there, it would be different.  The way he describes it in his book is "why use the bridge if you're not going to the new city?"  It does makes sense, but I do see both sides to this.


Unless, of course, the "bridge" wasn't built "to get to the new city." This is the inference Cekada makes, yet one could make this same inference from the reform under Pope St. Pius X.
Logged

Offline 2Vermont

Theological argument why Francis is the pope?
« Reply #161 on: November 27, 2013, 03:55:24 PM »
Quote from: SJB
Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Nishant
The funny thing is Fr. Cekada rejects the Holy Week reforms made under Pope Pius XII. The argument goes that it has become harmful and the law has ceased to bind! Strange, isn't it? I think that's a nice example of sifting Papal legislation beyond anything non-sedes do.


They invoke the principle of epikeia, i.e. since Pius XII is no longer alive they make the assumption that Pius XII would have rolled back the changes upon seeing the 20/20 hindsight where they would lead.

I consider this to be a major stretch.  I like some of the changes Pius XII made, don't care for others, but I don't consider any of them to be intrinisically bad or harmful to the faith.  I doubt that Father Cekada would either; I think that they would call them "inopportune" or "less good" than the previous version but not instrinsically harmful or bad.


I think Fr Cekada points to the reform at that time as the beginning stage of the Liturgical movement that eventually brought us to the radical changes in the 1960's.  Chances are, if these were the only changes/had it stopped there, it would be different.  The way he describes it in his book is "why use the bridge if you're not going to the new city?"  It does makes sense, but I do see both sides to this.


Unless, of course, the "bridge" wasn't built "to get to the new city." This is the inference Cekada makes, yet one could make this same inference from the reform under Pope St. Pius X.


Of course, I can't speak for him, but having read his book (and from what I remember), the focus was on the Liturgical reform movement from 1948 on.  He speaks of the reform prior to that differently than the reform during that time.  The latter leaned more left-oriented (for lack of a better term) and much of what began in the mid-late 50's looked much like the reforms we see in the NO mass.  I would suspect that the reform under PPX looked nothing like it.
Logged

Offline poche

Theological argument why Francis is the pope?
« Reply #162 on: November 29, 2013, 05:01:02 AM »
Quote from: soulguard
What is the theology behind those on this forum who hold that Francis is a valid pope? I noticed that Sedevacantists explained their position very well, but have not so far read an argument from the Sedeplenists on this question.

Perhaps someone could explain it for me.


Actually I hold a different approach. The cardinals went into the Sistine Chapel to elect a new pope. A few days later white smoke came out of teh chimney and one of the cardinals went to the place and announced "Habemus Papam..."
Out came teh old Cardinal Bergoglio, only this time he said he wants to be called Francis. Even people who strongly disagree, (Protestants, Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, etc...) with the Catholic Church recognize that Francis is the pope. That is why I recognize him as the pope.      
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33]
« previous next »