Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 10      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next   »
AugieDoggie

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 304
Reply with quote  #16 
I understand why you might approve of the new Pontiff, Peter. The problem with him, however, is that, as Mr. Weismiller has pointed out above on the previous page, he has been diluting the Faith in general. So I must disagree that the Church would be better off if Pope Francis had been elected earlier, especially given the fact that Benedict XVI helped usher in a revival of the Latin Mass. (Certainly it wouldn't be better for us traditionally-minded Catholics.) Even if he wasn't appealing to gay people, several of his other policies are still regrettable.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,593
Reply with quote  #17 
I also can understand that your concerns are different to mine, and therefore you have a different view of the two Popes. I presume by the way that you meant something other than 'regrettable' in your last sentence, since its intent seemed to be positive as regards Benedict XVI. However, while I am all for liturgical conservatism, on social matters the more humane, caring, understanding and, dare I say it, Christian face Pope Francis is giving the Church will I believe be of great benefit to it, not to mention to the people it will no longer harm and might even seek to help.
AugieDoggie

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 304
Reply with quote  #18 
To clarify my last sentence, I meant, "Even if [Pope Francis] wasn't trying to attract gay people, other things he has done are still regrettable." The latter includes, as you said, what he has done as regards the liturgy.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,771
Reply with quote  #19 

I haven't noticed much "caring" or "understanding" for liturgical traditionalists in the current pontificate.

 

 

royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,771
Reply with quote  #20 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
I didn't mean physical looks. Actually while I knew a bit about the then Cardinal Ratzinger it wasn't a great deal, and when he was elected I thought he seemed a beautiful old man. I already knew he had formidable intellect and learning, admirable qualities, so I was quite keen on him to begin with. However I grew to detest him because of his policies, and especially his anti-gay crusade. Pope Francis I thought at the beginning was going to be a nightmare, but he has been quite the opposite. I'm not even going to say 'so far', because I think he has been in office long enough for his measure to be apparent. I wish he had been elected instead of Benedict XVI, which it seems nearly happened, the Church would be very different today and a lot better for it.


Ridiculous. There was no "anti-gay crusade." Benedict XVI simply refused to reverse two millennia of Catholic teaching, or imply that it could be disregarded in practice without being formally abandoned as "moderates" seem to want. Of everything that Pope Benedict said and wrote, the percentage concerning homosexuality must have been very small indeed. Infinitely more significant were his revival of traditional papal aesthetics (even though he didn't go as far as I would have liked) and his encouragement of the Traditional Latin Mass. In contrast, His Humbleness, despite my agreement with him that the Church should not emphasize abortion and homosexuality at the expense of everything else (which I don't believe Benedict XVI did, but some conservative laity--perhaps especially in the United States--do) is the epitome of everything I despise about Contemporary Christianity. I don't want the Church in its public worship and ceremony to be "simple" or "humble." I want it to be grand and glorious with the most elaborate vestments, the most traditional liturgy, the most beautiful music, the most ornate art and architecture possible. I want a 16th century Church, not a 2nd century Church.

For me liturgical traditionalism comes first and I make no apologies for that. I sing in an Anglican (Episcopal) choir full of openly gay men and am at odds with conservatives when they put sexual morality first (there's not much I dislike more than "it doesn't matter if the liturgy's ugly as long as doctrine & morality are maintained" neoconservative Catholicism), but I'm also at odds with liberals when they put sexual permissivism or worse, "Equality" first.

As one who bitterly resents my own Communion's female "priests," I need for Rome to "be there," but what's happened to its liturgy over the past half century is an abomination, and it's absolutely heartbreaking and infuriating just as it seemed that things might finally be turning around in the other direction to see Benedict's work destroyed. I loathe this Bergoglio creature and will NEVER call him "Holy Father," nor will I ever call the overrated John Paul II "Saint." The sooner he's gone the better.

An example of what I detest with a venomous rage, Cardinal Bergoglio presiding:

 

 

AugieDoggie

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 304
Reply with quote  #21 
That video was terrifying. Could stand less than 20 seconds before I had to turn it off.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,771
Reply with quote  #22 
Here, this should make you feel better:



For the whole thing: http://www.thepapalvisit.org.uk/Replay-the-Visit/Watch-Again/Westminster-Cathedral-Holy-Mass
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,593
Reply with quote  #23 
Ah, it was an antecedent problem. As for 'ridiculous', you have your perspective and I have mine. Benedict XVI forbad the priesthood to gay men purely on the basis of their sexuality and regardless of whether they actually remained entirely chaste and always had, and the Church on his watch campaigned vigorously against gay rights, especially in North America. You know that I have a certain sympathy with your taste for grandeur in the liturgy and ceremonial generally, but I cannot regard liturgy and ceremonial as more important than or as important as questions of social justice. Though actually your tolerant and accepting attitude combined with your liturgical views would be perfect in a Pope.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,771
Reply with quote  #24 
I must say that I have to value the the friendship of anyone who could describe me as "tolerant and accepting" after reading my above post. [smile]

It depends on what is being discussed, I suppose...

I would love to be Pope. I already have my name picked out: Adrian VII, in honour of Adrian IV, the only English pope. People who thought Benedict XVI was too ostentatious or too traditional would be in for a rude awakening. Bye bye guitars, hello triple tiara...
jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,488
Reply with quote  #25 
Quote:
Originally Posted by House_of_Luxembourg
God help us all. I am now seeing some pretty disturbing reports tonight.

VATICAN CITY — An important meeting of bishops at the Vatican used remarkably conciliatory language Monday toward gay and divorced Catholics, signaling a possible easing of the church’s rigid attitudes on homosexuality and the sanctity of marriage.

The gathering of bishops from around the world called on pastors to recognize, among other things, the “positive aspects of civil unions and cohabitation.”


http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/2014/10/13/the-vatican-changing-its-views-toward-gay-divorced-catholics/4Hnbk1jq0eipbqxEcfAkEL/story.html


Are you aware that Pope Francis feared that the Synod report would adhere to Catholic teaching, so he appointed a number of his neo-protestant minions to 'help' write the report?

__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
AugieDoggie

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 304
Reply with quote  #26 
His Eminence Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke has been critical of the report, stating it lacks a solid foundation in the Scriptures and the Magisterium:

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/3429/cardinal_burke_synods_midterm_report_lacks_a_solid_foundation_in_the_sacred_scriptures_and_the_magisterium.aspx
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 910
Reply with quote  #27 
I do find it strange that secularists consider Benedict XVI and John Paul II as traditionalists.

To say the Church ignores social justice because it is against homosexual acts is simply to beg the question.

Anyway, from what I can see, the Church under Francis, whilst making some ominous noises, hasn't changed its doctrine or even its general approach to sinners. We are all sinners and we must always bear with the sinner. The problem is some seem to think this means we should excuse the sin. That is not being caring, humane, or understanding, and it is not humble as it is setting ourselves against the good.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 910
Reply with quote  #28 
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello



Ridiculous. There was no "anti-gay crusade." Benedict XVI simply refused to reverse two millennia of Catholic teaching, or imply that it could be disregarded in practice without being formally abandoned as "moderates" seem to want. Of everything that Pope Benedict said and wrote, the percentage concerning homosexuality must have been very small indeed. Infinitely more significant were his revival of traditional papal aesthetics (even though he didn't go as far as I would have liked) and his encouragement of the Traditional Latin Mass. In contrast, His Humbleness, despite my agreement with him that the Church should not emphasize abortion and homosexuality at the expense of everything else (which I don't believe Benedict XVI did, but some conservative laity--perhaps especially in the United States--do) is the epitome of everything I despise about Contemporary Christianity. I don't want the Church in its public worship and ceremony to be "simple" or "humble." I want it to be grand and glorious with the most elaborate vestments, the most traditional liturgy, the most beautiful music, the most ornate art and architecture possible. I want a 16th century Church, not a 2nd century Church.

For me liturgical traditionalism comes first and I make no apologies for that. I sing in an Anglican (Episcopal) choir full of openly gay men and am at odds with conservatives when they put sexual morality first (there's not much I dislike more than "it doesn't matter if the liturgy's ugly as long as doctrine & morality are maintained" neoconservative Catholicism), but I'm also at odds with liberals when they put sexual permissivism or worse, "Equality" first.

As one who bitterly resents my own Communion's female "priests," I need for Rome to "be there," but what's happened to its liturgy over the past half century is an abomination, and it's absolutely heartbreaking and infuriating just as it seemed that things might finally be turning around in the other direction to see Benedict's work destroyed. I loathe this Bergoglio creature and will NEVER call him "Holy Father," nor will I ever call the overrated John Paul II "Saint." The sooner he's gone the better.

An example of what I detest with a venomous rage, Cardinal Bergoglio presiding:

 

I actually disagree that many traditionalist Christians make a priority out of issues like homosexuality (abortion is different, as for many it is little different than any other homicide). These issues are important for contemporary left-liberalism, and the media makes much of them; so, as far as traditionalists won't back down on them, there is sometimes an impression they are an important concern of traditionalists. But actually, I know very few Christians who spend any significant amount of time thinking about them, compared with the time they spend on prayer and devotion and their own spiritual journey.

I own hundreds of books on religion, religious and moral philosophy, and spirituality. One of them alone is about defending marriage against what is referred to as gay marriage. Two or three more contain significant portions on sexual morality, especially natural law teaching on it.

As far as I'm concerned, though, Vatican II was a disaster for the Roman Church, which let in all the worst aspects of modernism and the Reformation. It is a major reason I will not be joining the Roman Church (I could join a Sedevacantist parish, of course, but I don't want to get into such internecine squabbles after experiencing them in the Anglican Church).
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,771
Reply with quote  #29 

It's a little more understandable with Benedict XVI than with John Paul II. Even some actual traditionalists (as opposed to "conservatives") had cause to be happy with some aspects of the previous pontificate. But I agree that Benedict XVI was a liberal compared to any pre-1958 pope, especially in his comments and actions on other religions and Church/State relations, even once (shudder) praising the "healthy secularity" of the French Republic.

 

House_of_Luxembourg

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 151
Reply with quote  #30 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jovan66102
Quote:
Originally Posted by House_of_Luxembourg
God help us all. I am now seeing some pretty disturbing reports tonight.

VATICAN CITY — An important meeting of bishops at the Vatican used remarkably conciliatory language Monday toward gay and divorced Catholics, signaling a possible easing of the church’s rigid attitudes on homosexuality and the sanctity of marriage.

The gathering of bishops from around the world called on pastors to recognize, among other things, the “positive aspects of civil unions and cohabitation.”


http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/2014/10/13/the-vatican-changing-its-views-toward-gay-divorced-catholics/4Hnbk1jq0eipbqxEcfAkEL/story.html



Are you aware that Pope Francis feared that the Synod report would adhere to Catholic teaching, so he appointed a number of his neo-protestant minions to 'help' write the report?


I am now.

By the way, my late father, a material heretic(please pray for his soul), was in a way more traditional than the current Pontiff(or Synod, or whoever it was at the Vatican who said that Catholics shouldn't strive for perfection, but instead "do their best" lol [rolleyes]), seeing as how he took very seriously our Lord's call to perfection, and understood that that is impossible without God.


__________________
"With God's help it will never be that a Bohemian king would run from a fight!"
- John the Blind
(according to an account in the Cronica ecclesiae pragensis Benesii Krabice de Weitmile)

ECH WUNN
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: