Catlick Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 His background as a Catholic priest in Kazakhstan sounds quite compelling. I'd like to find out more about him. He's an associate of Mgr. Athanasius Schneider, who served as auxiliary archbishop under him. Schneider, as you might know, is second only to Mgr. Burke in terms of prominence among Traditionalists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 If he thinks the church is in shambles now, he should have been around during the Council of Trent. It was a 20-year game of thrones between bishops who didn't want to live in their dioces, popes and cardinals who didn't want their mafia structure infringed on, kings and princes who didn't want to lose out on the balance of power, and preceeded by 200 years of bishops trying to mitigate the power accumulated by recent centuries of popes which had already exploded in the Protestant Reformation. Interestingly, the council of Trent kind of became a mythological event that created the image of the church as an institutional fortress, but the council itself was 20-years of bishops trying to play power games, making sure certain questions of doctrine or discipline were not dealt with, or only dealt with in the broadest of terms. It wasn't even clear after the council what it's authority would be, a lot depended on bishops and kings actually implementing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 If he thinks the church is in shambles now, he should have been around during the Council of Trent. It was a 20-year game of thrones between bishops who didn't want to live in their dioces, popes and cardinals who didn't want their mafia structure infringed on, kings and princes who didn't want to lose out on the balance of power, and preceeded by 200 years of bishops trying to mitigate the power accumulated by recent centuries of popes which had already exploded in the Protestant Reformation. Interestingly, the council of Trent kind of became a mythological event that created the image of the church as an institutional fortress, but the council itself was 20-years of bishops trying to play power games, making sure certain questions of doctrine or discipline were not dealt with, or only dealt with in the broadest of terms. It wasn't even clear after the council what it's authority would be, a lot depended on bishops and kings actually implementing it. Also preceded by the Great Western Schism and three Antipopes. Pope Benedict resigning is nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted February 13, 2015 Author Share Posted February 13, 2015 Please do not derail this thread. We are talking about today, not Trent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Please do not derail this thread. We are talking about today, not Trent. I haven't derailed the thread. He is making an historical commentary on the church, that it is in a "crisis." My point with Trent is that if he thinks this is a crisis, he must not know church history very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catlick Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 The essential difference between post-Trente and post-Vaticanum II is that in the former period, 99% of the bishops professed the full Faith, whereas at some points in the latter period, 70% of the bishops refused to profess the full Faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 And, implicitly, I am criticizing his view of the church as the kind of unhistorical romanticism that I referred to as the mythology of Trent (not to be confused with Trent itself). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 The essential difference between post-Trente and post-Vaticanum II is that in the former period, 99% of the bishops professed the full Faith, whereas at some points in the latter period, 70% of the bishops refused to profess the full Faith. Not true. Even the idea of a "full Faith" is anachronistic. One of the reasons Trent even met was because there was so much theology and doctrine that had not been formulated in any official way, like an official set of sacraments, an official canon of the Bible, the nature of grace and indulgences (all disputed questions in the middle ages and previously). And even in the council's formulations, there were areas where it remained vague or avoided certain questions so as not to get into murky waters. It was not even clear what constituted "Tradition"...there was still a lot of fluidity in theology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted February 13, 2015 Author Share Posted February 13, 2015 I haven't derailed the thread. He is making an historical commentary on the church, that it is in a "crisis." My point with Trent is that if he thinks this is a crisis, he must not know church history very well. How does whether or not there was a crisis in the Tridentine period have anything to do with whether or not there is a crisis now? That is like saying that there could not possibly be any poor people in the US since there are even poorer people in Africa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) How does whether or not there was a crisis in the Tridentine period have anything to do with whether or not there is a crisis now? That is like saying that there could not possibly be any poor people in the US since there are even poorer people in Africa. Because the word "crisis" has to have some meaning. Otherwise, what's the point in using it. If I use the word "poverty" to refer to a broke 17 year old who doesn't make enough money at his after school job to buy a new car, I've use the word in an absurd context. If we're going to talk about a "crisis" in the church then it should at least have some historical perspective. From what I can gather, the "crisis" he is referring to is just what's been going on for the last 300 years in Western history ("liberalism" and "modernism" as he calls them). Other stuff he references (e.g., nuncios and bishops being politically correct) is nothing new in the church, and is pretty tame today. Bishops had to walk on their toes to not offend their political rulers, who had some ecclesiastical privileges, back in Tridentine days. That is real "political correctness." I mean, he references a Masonic quote from the 19th century. If that's not an absurd use of history... Edited February 13, 2015 by Era Might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted February 13, 2015 Author Share Posted February 13, 2015 I have trouble finding value in discussing anything with you, to be brutally honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Probably because we just are interested in discussing different things, even when it's the same topic. Or maybe you just don't like me. Either is fine, I don't take it personally lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veritasluxmea Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Maybe we should categorize crises on a scale of 1 to 10. Council of Trent (assuming Era is accurate)- level 10. Post Vat II American Church after JPII's reign- Maybe 6. Phatmass- 11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Maybe we should categorize crises on a scale of 1 to 10. Council of Trent (assuming Era is accurate)- level 10. Post Vat II American Church after JPII's reign- Maybe 6. Phatmass- 11. Gross under-valuing of the Church right now. Some studies put over 90% of Catholic women on birth control, less than a quarter of Catholics go to Mass at least once a month (meaning the amount that go every week is even less), and half of American Catholics support gay marriage. In France, the Eldest Daughter of the Church, a study was conducted last year to see how many Catholics aged 18-28 went to Mass every week. The amount of people was so low that they put the number statistically at 0%. In one study in Ireland, over 70% of the Catholics polled didn't believe the Eucharist is the actual body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. These are numbers rivaling the Arian crisis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veritasluxmea Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 So more like an eight than Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now