TRADITIONIS CUSTODES

[ReasonableFaith]

On 8/6/2021 at 1:00 PM, fides' Jack said:

Still, it's clear he's an anti-pope.

Anti-Pope in the sense Benedict XVI is still the Pope,  someone other than Benedict XVI or Francis is the Pope, or there is no current Pope?

[KnightofChrist]

13 hours ago, ReasonableFaith said:

Anti-Pope in the sense Benedict XVI is still the Pope,  someone other than Benedict XVI or Francis is the Pope, or there is no current Pope?

In context I read it as Pope Francis is the Pope but not at all a good one, one that acts counter to how a Pope should.

[SicutColumba]

7 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

context I read it as Pope Francis is the Pope but not at all a good one, one that acts counter to how a Pope should.

But antipope is a pretty loaded term. Across Church history it means someone who claims themself to be pope and has a significant influence. It doesn’t mean a bad pope or even a horrible one, and people who use this word know this. 

So not the pope

Edited August 9, 2021 by SicutColumba
I forgot a word

[KnightofChrist]

On the question of how far obedience to the Pope goes when he rejects tradition I'm reminded of the book "Catholics" by Brian Moore

Which is in many ways similar to the crisis in the Church since Vatican II.

Description from Amazon

"In Rome, surrendering to secular pressures, the Fourth Vatican Council is stirring a revolution with their official denial of the church’s core doctrines. They’ve abolished clerical dress and private confession; the Eucharist is recognized only as an outdated symbol; and they’re merging with the tenets of Buddhism. They’re also unsettled by the blind faith of devout pilgrims from around the world congregating on a remote island monastery in Ireland—the last spot on earth where Catholic traditions are defiantly alive. At the behest of the Vatican, Father James Kinsella has been dispatched to Muck Abbey with an ultimatum: Adhere to the new church or suffer the consequences.
 
But in Abbot Tomás O’Malley, Kinsella finds less an adversary than a man of bewildering contradictions—unyieldingly bound to his vows, yet long-questioning his devotion to God. Now, between Kinsella and O’Malley comes an unexpected challenge that will reveal their truths, their purpose, their faith, and their doubt.
 
“Told with . . . superb grace and wit,” Catholics was adapted by Brian Moore for the 1973 film starring Martin Sheen and Trevor Howard ( The New Yorker)."

 

Spoiler in the end from what I recall of the book and the movie the 'radtrads' submit to authority the one and only part of tradition still held.  

 

3 minutes ago, SicutColumba said:

But antipope is a pretty loaded term. Across Church history it means someone who claims themself to be pope and has a significant influence. It doesn’t mean a bad pope or even a horrible one, and people who use this word know this. 

So not the pope

Agreed, not a term I would have used.  Pope Francis' actions for example his repetitive defence of child abusers make him a bad even wicked Pope, but not an Antipope. 

[fides' Jack]

On 8/8/2021 at 7:43 PM, ReasonableFaith said:

Anti-Pope in the sense Benedict XVI is still the Pope,  someone other than Benedict XVI or Francis is the Pope, or there is no current Pope?

 

23 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

Agreed, not a term I would have used.  Pope Francis' actions for example his repetitive defence of child abusers make him a bad even wicked Pope, but not an Antipope. 

That's fine.  I can admit I used the term incorrectly.  I was ignorant of the actual meaning.

No, I don't claim that Pope Francis is not the legitimate pope.  As I stated, I submit to his authority, in all of those instances where he does not abuse that authority.  For instance, if he tells me I have to wear a face mask or get a vaccine, in acting according to my conscience, I have to disobey.

An antichrist, then.

[fides' Jack]

 

On 8/8/2021 at 7:04 AM, Peace said:

Yes, conscience plays a role, but I think you are abusing it to essentially replace the pope's judgment with your own judgment , with respect to literally every issue. You seemingly will not give assent to any issue, unless it already conforms to your own own understanding of what the Church "really" teaches.

Literally every issue?  

You yourself said that it's a serious charge you've levied against me, so let's not exaggerate it, then.

On 8/8/2021 at 7:04 AM, Peace said:

Because you and others have come on this forum and moaned and complained about him being wrong on this issue or that issue, but when others such as myself have challenged your assertion, you have been utterly incapable of objectively demonstrating that what PF said contradicts the teaching of the church.

I can't speak for others.  I have defended my position, but I admit I am incapable of defending it in a way that is persuasive to you.

On 8/8/2021 at 7:04 AM, Peace said:

Almost all of your objections have fallen into gray areas, we are not talking about murdering infants. It's like the Holy Spirit prompted you to conclude that the footnote in Amoris was heresy.

Almost all?  Can you give me one objection that was a black and white issue?  Can you give me an example of 3 or 4 that fell into gray areas?  

Honestly, in my mind, there are very, very few gray areas.  The Church's teaching is consistently black and white.  Very little gray.  It is the devil who tries to make everything gray and confusing in order to lead people astray.

Can you find a quote from me saying that the footnote in Amoris Laetitia was heresy?  Or are you lumping me in with one of "those people"?

On 8/8/2021 at 7:04 AM, Peace said:

You've basically publicly accused Pope Francis of being a heretic. Again, not a good look, especially for a layperson. 

There were a couple different directions I thought about going, in order to answer this.  To be honest, I don't know for sure that he is a formal heretic, but certainly he has advocated for heretical ideas.

If I were concerned just with looks, I wouldn't even go that far.  But truth needs to be proclaimed.

On 8/8/2021 at 7:04 AM, Peace said:

Let a bishop do that, if it needs to be done.

Bishops have done it.  Bishops are doing it.  

 

The fact of the matter is that the truth, especially right now, needs to be proclaimed, at all costs, by all faithful people.

I recommend you read the LifeSiteNews article on Blessed Franz Jägerstätter, that I just posted in a new topic: 

He was made a blessed because he had the courage and the fortitude to defend truth, even to the point of losing his life, and specifically against the Nazis AND his bishop and his pastor, when everyone around was accusing him of basically the same thing you're accusing me of now.

If you think I'm making a mistake comparing his situation to my own, know that I was not the first to do so.  It's a good article.

On 8/7/2021 at 10:53 PM, Mercedes said:

Catholics have expressed this attitude towards papal authority over the last 60 or 70 years.  They are called 'cafeteria' Catholics who simply pick and choose what they will submit too according to their own desires.

Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Mt 5:10

Edited August 10, 2021 by fides' Jack
grammar

[Peace]

7 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

 

Literally every issue?  

You yourself said that it's a serious charge you've levied against me, so let's not exaggerate it, then.

Yeah dude. Literally every issue. You admit it yourself below by asserting that the Church's teaching is consistently "black and white".

Since all of the teachings are "black and white" what need is there for you to submit to the authority of Pope Francis. The issues are easy. You know just as well as he does, no?

7 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Almost all?  Can you give me one objection that was a black and white issue?  Can you give me an example of 3 or 4 that fell into gray areas? 

Dude I don't remember the specific points. It's not like I am going to go back and search through threads.

7 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Honestly, in my mind, there are very, very few gray areas.  The Church's teaching is consistently black and white.  Very little gray.  It is the devil who tries to make everything gray and confusing in order to lead people astray.

Exactly. You think that there are very few gray areas if any and everything is black and white. If everything is black and white to you, why would you have any need to listen to Pope Francis? If he agrees with your "black and white" determination then he is correct. If he disagrees with your "black and white" determination then he is incorrect.

7 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Can you find a quote from me saying that the footnote in Amoris Laetitia was heresy?  Or are you lumping me in with one of "those people"?

 I don't remember what your stance was with respect to that issue specifically. Why don't you just stop beating around the bush and tell us what it was if you have a point to make? It ain't like I'm gonna spend the next hour searching through your old posts.

7 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

There were a couple different directions I thought about going, in order to answer this.  To be honest, I don't know for sure that he is a formal heretic, but certainly he has advocated for heretical ideas.

If I were concerned just with looks, I wouldn't even go that far.  But truth needs to be proclaimed.

Bishops have done it.  Bishops are doing it.  

 

The fact of the matter is that the truth, especially right now, needs to be proclaimed, at all costs, by all faithful people.

I recommend you read the LifeSiteNews article on Blessed Franz Jägerstätter, that I just posted in a new topic: 

He was made a blessed because he had the courage and the fortitude to defend truth, even to the point of losing his life, and specifically against the Nazis AND his bishop and his pastor, when everyone around was accusing him of basically the same thing you're accusing me of now.

If you think I'm making a mistake comparing his situation to my own, know that I was not the first to do so.  It's a good article.

Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Mt 5:10

Who knows. Maybe you'll be proven right one day. I highly doubt it, but we shall see.

[ReasonableFaith]

40 minutes ago, Peace said:

If he agrees with your "black and white" determination then he is correct. If he disagrees with your "black and white" determination then he is incorrect.

It seems more severe than being ‘incorrect.’  When Francis disagrees with the poster’s ‘black and white’ determinations the Pope becomes:

 

8 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

An antichrist, then.

As modified from the earlier descriptor  of Francis as an ‘anti-Pope,’ a concept taught in these parts to public school 11th graders by the so called ‘leftist owned educational system.’  

[fides' Jack]

On 8/10/2021 at 5:08 PM, Peace said:

You know just as well as he does, no?

On every issue?  No.

 

On 8/10/2021 at 5:08 PM, Peace said:

If everything is black and white to you, why would you have any need to listen to Pope Francis? If he agrees with your "black and white" determination then he is correct. If he disagrees with your "black and white" determination then he is incorrect.

Not mine, the Church's, as taught across millennia.

And I didn't say everything is black and white.  It is generally so, with the Church.

On 8/10/2021 at 5:08 PM, Peace said:

I don't remember what your stance was with respect to that issue specifically. Why don't you just stop beating around the bush and tell us what it was if you have a point to make? It ain't like I'm gonna spend the next hour searching through your old posts.

To be honest, at that point I wasn't posting here, much.

My point is that you're over-generalizing with regards to my positions and my stances, which is why I was asking for specific evidence to back your claims, such as "literally every issue", etc...

I like you, Peace, but you seem to attack the person more so than the argument.  At least in my case...  I have seen some good arguments from you with other posters.  And you've proven me wrong a couple times, as well.

Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely guilty of this, too - especially over the last couple years with regards to leftism. 

A couple of my favorite lines, from one of my favorite shows: 

Quote

Why are those like yourself [...] not dissuaded by all the evidence to the contrary?

Because all the evidence to the contrary is not entirely dissuasive.

Precisely.

 

On 8/10/2021 at 5:59 PM, ReasonableFaith said:

As modified from the earlier descriptor  of Francis as an ‘anti-Pope,’ a concept taught in these parts to public school 11th graders by the so called ‘leftist owned educational system.’  

I admit it: I'm stupid.

To further prove this point, I'll tell you something about me - I was homeschooled in 11th grade.  Take that however you want to.

On 8/10/2021 at 5:08 PM, Peace said:

If everything is black and white to you, why would you have any need to listen to Pope Francis? If he agrees with your "black and white" determination then he is correct. If he disagrees with your "black and white" determination then he is incorrect.

Just reading this again...  I don't know for sure what it is you're trying to say here.

But it's more the pope's job to defend the Church than it is my job to defend the pope.

[Peace]

4 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Not mine, the Church's, as taught across millennia.

Doesn't matter. The living magisterium is the only authentic interpreter of Sacred Tradition. You don't have the authority to go back and say "the Church has always taught this" or "the Church has always taught that." That is simply your opinion. If your opinion as to what the Church "really taught" since "time immemorial" differs from your superiors, then you are to assent to their teaching.

Otherwise you are functionally no different than a Protestant with a history book.

4 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

I like you, Peace, but you seem to attack the person more so than the argument.

I attack both in equal measures, with no shame whatsoever. I am resigned to purgatory.

Whatever is necessary to secure the victory my friend. Peace goes low when others go high. You all know this. It amuses me when people complain about it actually.

Or as Al Davis said: Just win baby.

[MIKolbe]

11 hours ago, Peace said:

Otherwise you are functionally no different than a Protestant with a history book.

 

respeck

[fides' Jack]

16 hours ago, Peace said:

Doesn't matter. The living magisterium is the only authentic interpreter of Sacred Tradition. You don't have the authority to go back and say "the Church has always taught this" or "the Church has always taught that." That is simply your opinion. If your opinion as to what the Church "really taught" since "time immemorial" differs from your superiors, then you are to assent to their teaching.

This is absolutely false.

Any Catholic who knows the Church's unchanging teaching on faith or morals is called to defend that teaching, especially when it is challenged by the "wolves" present in the Church.

There are absolutely cases when the laity are called to learn the teaching of the Church on their own, and there are cases when they are called to recognize heresy even among the authority of the Church.

And my case is easily provable.  There are bishops today who have publicly said that the Eucharist is merely a symbol, who do not believe in the True Presence.  Are you not called to correct them?  Are you going to remain silent in the face of such as insult to God?  Aren't you afraid of meeting your Judge, only to hear Him ask you, "Why didn't you defend Me?"

Also, St. Paul corrected Peter, the first pope.  That should be example enough for you to abandon your incorrect view.

16 hours ago, Peace said:

I attack both in equal measures, with no shame whatsoever. I am resigned to purgatory.

That's sad.  I'll pray for us both.

16 hours ago, Peace said:

Otherwise you are functionally no different than a Protestant with a history book.

Wrong again, there's a difference between heresy and schism, and my position is neither.

[Mercedes]

31 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

And my case is easily provable.  There are bishops today who have publicly said that the Eucharist is merely a symbol, who do not believe in the True Presence.  Are you not called to correct them?  Are you going to remain silent in the face of such as insult to God?  Aren't you afraid of meeting your Judge, only to hear Him ask you, "Why didn't you defend Me?"

 

Who are these bishops?  I've never heard this claim before.  Can you cite examples or name them?

[KnightofChrist]

19 hours ago, Peace said:

Doesn't matter. The living magisterium is the only authentic interpreter of Sacred Tradition. You don't have the authority to go back and say "the Church has always taught this" or "the Church has always taught that." That is simply your opinion. If your opinion as to what the Church "really taught" since "time immemorial" differs from your superiors, then you are to assent to their teaching.

What happens then when a vast majority of the 'living magisterium' teaches and believes heresy and the Pope goes along with it under pressure and/or a desire to get along with the secular powers?

[fides' Jack]

2 hours ago, Mercedes said:

Who are these bishops?  I've never heard this claim before.  Can you cite examples or name them?

No.  That would violate the 8th Commandment.

The point is that if the "road to hell is paved with the skulls of priests, and the skulls of bishops are the lampposts that light the path", one would be careful not to follow bishops and priests who clearly don't align with Church teaching.