Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Pope Francis Washed The Feet Of 12 Young Detainees


GregorMendel

Recommended Posts

As I said in another post, I do not accept the modern distinction between tradition and Tradition.

 

Postscript: see post #95

 

But you said (paraphrase) that by altering tradition, Pope Francis has made it possible to change all all traditions. He didn't; your rejection of T/tradition dichotomy is irrelevant in that particular sense. We still can't ordain women, we still can't support contraception, and neither of these facts are in the slightest danger.

 

So I truly appreciate your post #95, but really it didn't answer my question.

 

Anyway, I trust the Pope's interpretation of tradition a lot more than I trust my own--even if he's fallible, he's still much smarter and far more devoted than I ever will be. By following the Pope, I suspect I'll stay much closer to the traditions of the Church than if I tried to do that on my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KnightofChrist

But you said (paraphrase) that by altering tradition, Pope Francis has made it possible to change all all traditions. He didn't; your rejection of T/tradition dichotomy is irrelevant in that particular sense. We still can't ordain women, we still can't support contraception, and neither of these facts are in the slightest danger.

So I truly appreciate your post #95, but really it didn't answer my question.

Anyway, I trust the Pope's interpretation of tradition a lot more than I trust my own--even if he's fallible, he's still much smarter and far more devoted than I ever will be. By following the Pope, I suspect I'll stay much closer to the traditions of the Church than if I tried to do that on my own.



If a tradition or law can just be ignored, any tradition or law could be ignored. Sometimes it only takes one crack in a dam to destroy it and everything it protects. It's dangerous to ignore law, the ripple effects could be wide and harmful. Because others could use one example of ignoring tradition/law to ignore others.


"Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down (and you're just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!" - Thomas More from Man for all Seasons.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you said (paraphrase) that by altering tradition, Pope Francis has made it possible to change all all traditions. He didn't; your rejection of T/tradition dichotomy is irrelevant in that particular sense. We still can't ordain women, we still can't support contraception, and neither of these facts are in the slightest danger.

 

So I truly appreciate your post #95, but really it didn't answer my question.

 

Anyway, I trust the Pope's interpretation of tradition a lot more than I trust my own--even if he's fallible, he's still much smarter and far more devoted than I ever will be. By following the Pope, I suspect I'll stay much closer to the traditions of the Church than if I tried to do that on my own.

Actually it is not just what Pope Francis has done, because much of this began when Pope Paul VI decided to arbitrarily re-write the Roman Church's entire liturgy. Once you replace the liturgy that has existed in a self-governing Church for more than 1,600 years and start over with one composed by a group of scholars with their own agenda, you bring about a rupture in Tradition. In the Eastern Churches this type of activity would be rejected by the monastics, the lay faithful, and by the clergy as well. The conservative nature of the Eastern Churches (and I am not using this word according to its political meaning) is what safe-guards the faith of the Church, for as the ancient axiom puts it: "The rule of prayer determines the rule of faith." Once you change the prayer, you change the Church's faith, and that type of thing would never be allowed in the Eastern Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Churches. 

 

[mod] EDITED~~~ CATHOLIC VS CATHOLIC [/mod] Well, I guess that reveals that our understanding of the nature of the faith and the activity of the Holy Spirit within the life of the Church is truly different. In other words, Catholics who believe in the Apostolic Tradition (like myself) and Catholics who accept modern liturgical innovations no longer even speak the same theological language. That is a scary thought, but I will stick with what has been believed, always, everywhere, and by all, as the Ancient Fathers taught, for the faith really has been "once for all delivered to the saints", and no one, not even the pope, is above the Church's faith or the Tradition by which the faith is passed on from generation to generation.

Edited by Roamin_Catholic
Catholic vs Catholic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ToJesusMyHeart

Actually it is not just what Pope Francis has done, because much of this began when Pope Paul VI decided to arbitrarily re-write the Roman Church's entire liturgy. Once you replace the liturgy that has existed in a self-governing Church for more than 1,600 years and start over with one composed by a group of scholars with their own agenda, you bring about a rupture in Tradition. In the Eastern Churches this type of activity would be rejected by the monastics, the lay faithful, and by the clergy as well. The conservative nature of the Eastern Churches (and I am not using this word according to its political meaning) is what safe-guards the faith of the Church, for as the ancient axiom puts it: "The rule of prayer determines the rule of faith." Once you change the prayer, you change the Church's faith, and that type of thing would never be allowed in the Eastern Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Churches. 

 

You trust the pope's "re-interpretation", or as I would call it "distortion", of the rite. Well, I guess that reveals that our understanding of the nature of the faith and the activity of the Holy Spirit within the life of the Church is truly different. In other words, Catholics who believe in the Apostolic Tradition (like myself) and Catholics who accept modern liturgical innovations no longer even speak the same theological language. That is a scary thought, but I will stick with what has been believed, always, everywhere, and by all, as the Ancient Fathers taught, for the faith really has been "once for all delivered to the saints", and no one, not even the pope, is above the Church's faith or the Tradition by which the faith is passed on from generation to generation.

Maybe I should convert.  :|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I would further explain the word "conservative" in my previous post, because as I said I am not using it in a political sense; instead, I am using it according to its original meaning, that is, to conserve or maintain what has been received. To put it another way, the bishops (along with all the faithful - each in his own way) have been entrusted to pass on what they have received, and not what they personally may have wished to received. There is nothing more destructive of Tradition than the notion that the one entrusted to communicate it to others has the power to alter it at will. Once a person alters the Tradition, by its very nature a rupture occurs, for a "new tradition" has been created, and the Dominical Tradition entrusted to the Apostles by Christ the Lord Himself has been either distorted or destroyed. As a Melkite Catholic my prayers will continue for the restoration of sanity in the Roman Church, so that the pope, and all the bishops, clergy, and faithful of that venerable Church, will strive with all their power under the life-creating grace of the Holy Spirit to restore what has been lost over the course of the last generation. After all, the faith of the ages is as stake.

Edited by Apotheoun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ToJesusMyHeart

Apo, can you give a rundown of all the different Rites in the Catholic Church, how each came to be, and how they are different from each other?

 

Also, perhaps, which countries each Rite originated in and which countries each Rite is most common today.

 

Is it correct that only the Roman Rite requires a celibate priesthood?

 

If you'd rather PM me the details, that works too. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's Easter. Go home, have a few beers, put your feet up. You can come back on Monday. Have a wonderful day. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lilllabettt

'splain rites please. also provide geographic index  a la cia world factbook

 

There  are like 19 of them. More than that. You just asked the man to write a book.

Edited by Lilllabettt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a simple diagram of the origins of the different Churches within the communion of Churches going back to the original Church in Jerusalem. The diagram breaks down also into five families (or groupings of Churches) that are called "rites" or "families of rites."

 

diagram.jpg

 

Edited by homeschoolmom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There  are like 19 of them. More than that. You just asked the man to write a book.

Actually, a friend of mine has written a book on it, and another friend has condensed the information down and placed it on the internet at the Byzantine Forum. Sadly, the Byzantine Forum has a search function that, for lack of a better word "sucks," and so it may be hard to find that condensed information, but I will look for it all the same, and should I find it I will either re-post it, or post a link to it. 

 

That said, the diagram I posted above gives a simple overview of the groupings of Churches and the five families of rites.

Edited by Apotheoun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...