Saturday, March 09, 2013

Catching up



Here comes the conclave. The usual clerical gossip, and Modernist and secularist bloviations. Again, they say they object to the Pope’s power (classic Protestant argument), then give him a list of demands that would require power he doesn’t have! In other words they don’t have a clue about the church. You know what I want. A Benedict XVII or Pius XIII who makes Bishop Fellay a cardinal. (86 the council because of all the damage it’s done, but I’m fine with religious freedom. It’s Not About Latin™ — traditionalism’s really not about forcing a dead language on people — but my Mass happens to be in it, which is fine.) Anyway, a couple about ressourcement: Slowly catching up; I’ll probably disappear again Monday through Wednesday.

4 comments:

  1. 1. I don't pretend to understand everything that was written in the two articles from the Acton Institute and Modestinus, but IIRC, Vatican II called for a return to Patristics. Instead we got the de-Medievalization of the CC and the institution of the modernist "descent into darkness."

    2. Hans Kung holds such manifestly & notoriously heterodox positions, I wonder why Rome has never officially declared him to be a detestable heretic????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A return to patristics sounds great, like you'd get something like Orthodoxy (patristic on paper; in practice as wonderfully medieval as we are) and what classic Anglicans and Tractarians wanted. But it turned out to be a cover for Modernism.

      As I like to say, the pre-conciliar/traditional church is a big tent, not a cult. There are lots of Bad Catholics: poorly informed laity who think and say wrong things. The church doesn't go after them, which is right. A heretic is someone who was in a position of authority and trust (and thus can harm people's faith if he teaches error), is learned enough to know better, and has been warned. Professors and priests for example. Küng's our Spong, and all he's gotten in 50 years is his licentiate to teach Catholic theology taken away. (That means he's not officially a Catholic theologian anymore but still a Catholic in good standing.) Well and good, and as the article says, his kind is dying out anyway/he doesn't have a big following in the church anymore, but why on earth is he still in good standing as a priest?

      Delete
    2. "Well and good, and as the article says, his kind is dying out anyway/he doesn't have a big following in the church anymore, but why on earth is he still in good standing as a priest?"--->>>

      Precisely, John! I just as well might have also mentioned (Fr.) Charles Curran who is now a tenured Prof. at So. Methodist U. Go figure! On the other hand, he too is loooong in the tooth and who pays attention to him anymore??? I supposed one can look at it as God's holy & just revenge! LOL

      I am confident that the Lord will give these two gents, if necessary, one last chance at the moments of their deaths to see the error of their ways and repent and be saved. May the Good Lord afford all of us this opportunity, especially me! :-)

      Yeah, I particularly like the Orthodox Church's patristics, spirituality, and liturgy as you already well know!


      Delete
    3. I heard Curran's sophistry in person once. If I remember rightly, same story. How Paul VI and John Paul II handled heretics. (Not sure if that's the right word for dissent on contraception and abortion, as it is for denying the teaching of the creeds; as far as I know Küng's an agnostic.) They took his licentiate away so technically as well as in practice he's not a Catholic theologian anymore, but he's not excommunicated and still in good standing as a priest. Again, layfolk can get away with a lot. Priests shouldn't. It's a big church, not a cult, so sure, there are bad priests. Küng and Curran were too big to get away with it.

      Delete

Leave comment