Where might the axe fall next?

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Your antipathy towards the Catholic Church's traditional character is your own shortcoming to deal with.

And by the Church's traditional character I assume you refer to the particular manner in which you believe that things should be done?

Regardless, however you might define tradition (e.g. mass in Latin, communion kneeling on the tongue, not selling art, etc.) I have no particular dislike of them. One of the main parishes I am active in has the TLM and I like this parish quite a bit, as I have stated on this forum before.

My irritation is when folks insinuate that particular traditions are the standard by which one's correctness or "Catholicity" should be judged, as if anytime anyone dares to do something different he should be presumed to be incorrect or less authentically Catholic.

Now, I felt that your post above with respect to Pope Francis was insinuating those things. You certainly have a right to make that point if you desire to do so. But other folks also have a right to state their disagreement with your view. And as often as you have a right to express that view others have a right to express their disagreement with it.

But it's all good - I still think that you are a good person and invaluable to the forum, although we happen to but heads on this point with frequency.

[Peace]

13 hours ago, Jack4 said:

His predecessors' public statements  usually don't need "interpretation".

That's essentially the same argument that Protestants use vis-a-vis the Bible to deny the authority of the living Magisterium. The only difference is that you replace scripture with tradition, statements of prior popes, or your subjective interpretations of them.

[Jack4]

6 hours ago, Peace said:

That's essentially the same argument that Protestants use vis-a-vis the Bible to deny the authority of the living Magisterium. The only difference is that you replace scripture with tradition, statements of prior popes, or your subjective interpretations of them.

Find a different interpretation from mine in the following:

84. Daily experience unfortunately shows that people who have obtained a divorce usually intend to enter into a new union, obviously not with a Catholic religious ceremony. Since this is an evil that, like the others, is affecting more and more Catholics as well, the problem must be faced with resolution and without delay. The Synod Fathers studied it expressly. The Church, which was set up to lead to salvation all people and especially the baptized, cannot abandon to their own devices those who have been previously bound by sacramental marriage and who have attempted a second marriage. The Church will therefore make untiring efforts to put at their disposal her means of salvation.

Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children's upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.

Together with the Synod, I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life. They should be encouraged to listen to the word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts in favor of justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God's grace. Let the Church pray for them, encourage them and show herself a merciful mother, and thus sustain them in faith and hope.

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they "take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples."[180]

Similarly, the respect due to the sacrament of Matrimony, to the couples themselves and their families, and also to the community of the faithful, forbids any pastor, for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry. Such ceremonies would give the impression of the celebration of a new sacramentally valid marriage, and would thus lead people into error concerning the indissolubility of a validly contracted marriage.

By acting in this way, the Church professes her own fidelity to Christ and to His truth. At the same time she shows motherly concern for these children of hers, especially those who, through no fault of their own, have been abandoned by their legitimate partner.

With firm confidence she believes that those who have rejected the Lord's command and are still living in this state will be able to obtain from God the grace of conversion and salvation, provided that they have persevered in prayer, penance and charity.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Jack4 said:

Find a different interpretation from mine in the following:

I don't know what your interpretation of it is Jack4.

[Jack4]

10 hours ago, Peace said:

I don't know what your interpretation of it is Jack4.

The literal one. 

19 hours ago, Peace said:

That's essentially the same argument that Protestants use vis-a-vis the Bible to deny the authority of the living Magisterium. The only difference is that you replace scripture with tradition, statements of prior popes, or your subjective interpretations of them.

I will leave it to someone with a better grasp of philosophy to properly articulate the matters. 

[Jack4]

 

21 hours ago, Peace said:

On 2/9/2017 at 9:26 AM, Peace said:

What I mean to get at with that question is, I still have a bit of trouble understanding why tradition (little T) should be a basis for evaluating truth or correctness... I do not particularly see why something should be judged as being more likely to be correct or advisable because it is older.

And by the Church's traditional character I assume you refer to the particular manner in which you believe that things should be done?

My irritation is when folks insinuate that particular traditions are the standard by which one's correctness or "Catholicity" should be judged, as if anytime anyone dares to do something different he should be presumed to be incorrect or less authentically Catholic.

 

Can you explain these points which I have quoted, please? In detail, and with examples? Thank you. 

 

Quote

But it's all good - I still think that @Nihil Obstat are a good person and invaluable to the forum..

I agree. 

Edited February 10, 2017 by Jack4

[Peace]

3 hours ago, Jack4 said:

The literal one. 

OK. And what literal interpretation would that be?

3 hours ago, Jack4 said:

I will leave it to someone with a better grasp of philosophy to properly articulate the matters. 

I wouldn't hold your breath.

2 hours ago, Jack4 said:

Can you explain these points which I have quoted, please? In detail, and with examples? Thank you.

I don't have a desire to do that. Sorry.

[Jack4]

8 hours ago, Peace said:

OK. And what literal interpretation would that be?

On one hand, the divorced and remarried should partake in the life of the Church, we should treat them with love. OTOH They are not to be admitted to Sacramental Communion. 

Quote

I wouldn't hold your breath.

Understanding a Papal statement is far, far different from Scriptural exegesis.

Quote

I don't have a desire to do that. Sorry.

Your comments on tradition form the crux of your position, but I'm not sure I understand them.  

[Peace]

19 hours ago, Jack4 said:

On one hand, the divorced and remarried should partake in the life of the Church, we should treat them with love. OTOH They are not to be admitted to Sacramental Communion. 

Understanding a Papal statement is far, far different from Scriptural exegesis.

Your comments on tradition form the crux of your position, but I'm not sure I understand them.  

Prayers for your soul.

[KnightofChrist]

7 hours ago, Peace said:

Prayers for your soul.

 

[Peace]

7 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

 

Why Knight, are you suggesting that responding to someone's post by telling him that you will pray for his soul is something that an A-hole would do?

Thank you for helping me make my point.

Edited February 12, 2017 by Peace

[KnightofChrist]

30 minutes ago, Peace said:

Why Knight, are you suggesting that responding to someone's post by telling him that you will pray for his soul is something that an A-hole would do?

Thank you for helping me make my point.

You've turned yet another thread into your bitter personal hangups with traditional Catholics, made intellectually lazy accusations that Catholics here are Protestants, and belittle the foreign kid using 'prayer'. 

[Guest]

 

 

Edited February 12, 2017 by BarbaraTherese

[Guest]

Please lighten up guys

[Peace]

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

You've turned yet another thread into your bitter personal hangups with traditional Catholics, made intellectually lazy accusations that Catholics here are Protestants, and belittle the foreign kid using 'prayer'. 

The language I included in my response to Jack4 are his own words, so if you have a problem with someone using 'prayer' to belittle someone, you should speak to Jack4 about that.