No, no, when +Strickland is sacked it will have nothing to do whatsoever with his strident tweets nor with his protests against the heroic and virtuous charity organization known as the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (of whom I have little doubt some or all of our beloved cardinals feel more kinship with than with their confrere in Tyle…
No, no, when +Strickland is sacked it will have nothing to do whatsoever with his strident tweets nor with his protests against the heroic and virtuous charity organization known as the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (of whom I have little doubt some or all of our beloved cardinals feel more kinship with than with their confrere in Tyler, TX). No, no, heavens no. You see, when +Strickland is sacked, it's because he's a poor bookkeeper. Right. That's the ticket. Nothing to see here. Move along.
well, according to this one priest that's the "primary" reason. I think it's about time something was done in response to his stupid tweets including his rejection of the "program" of Francis (which is simply the Gospel), as well as more generally his alignment with reactionary extremism in the USA.
I didn't mention synodality, and neither did Strickland in the tweet I referenced. I am speaking more broadly about the vision and theology of Francis, which is in every aspect informed by the Gospel. as for your description of synodality, it is not representative of reality. real synodality, walking together in prayer and listening to each other and to the Holy Spirit, is indeed based on the Gospel and the Scriptures.
of course not! synodality is absolutely key to the vision of Francis. where I disagree is about what synodality is and whether it is being done effectively in the current synod.
you are badly mistaken, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. the early Christians effectively engaged in rudimentary, voluntary communism. they held everything in common and gave to each according to his or her need. some of those in the community who kept private property were killed by God. as for synods, it is absurd to think that you can follow what a synod says without first doing a synod.
Friend, you have no idea what scriptures I do or do not know, but seeing how you misrepresent the story of Ananias and Sapphira I wonder who is badly mistaken here.
But one thing that I do know is that “Synodality” is nothing that the Orthodox nor the Syro-Malabar nor the early church would recognize. We’re not doing a synod, it’s a total crock. I reject it utterly, Francis or no Francis.
I wonder why would we venture to call it "rudimentary, voluntary communism" when we could use even more words and call it "a rudimentary Catholic Worker movement" or use fewer words and call it "rudimentary monasticism" (these all sound equally silly to me, like debating whether it is correct to call a wolf a rudimentary large chihuahua; there is already a name for it, which is "a wolf", and we need not be self-congratulatory for having created dog pedigrees.)
The first seven Ecumenical Councils had those who disagreed with the decisions of those Councils. Yet they accomplished (without edicts from the bishop of Rome alone) proclaiming what is the orthodox Faith of the Church.
There were those who dissented and were truly heretics, some participants were confused by the linguistic differences amd.formula does in explaining the teaching proposed and received by most of the Church.
But it was these Councils that synodically, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit "nailed down" the essential truths of the Faith.
The pope did not impose these and in some cases was not asked to ratify the decisions of these Councils.
Unfortunately, the form of synodality at those Councils is not what is being touted as synodality today. They are two very different "creatures."
The decisions of those Sacred Synods were not based on broad consultations and opinions of every conceivable group or various individuals to set their teachings. It was the many bishops and other ecclesiastics that argued, discussed pulled beards and condemned each other who finally set down the truth.
Laity, and lower clergy "received" the teaching, some rejected them. The non Chalcedonian Churches and and some of the Syriac Churches are evidence of this.
Bottom line, it was the bishops of those Councils (not some broad consultations of everyone in creation) that proclaimed and annunciated the orthodox Faith.
The synodality of the seven Ecumenical Councils of the mainly undivided Church have very little in common with the SoS today.
your comment is mostly correct. when I said synodality was practiced early, I was referring to the New Testament, though of course later examples are also forms of synodality. the Jerusalem council for example seemingly had some "lay participation" (though as yet there were not clear lines between laity and clergy), believers who attended and even spoke at the council. it certainly included the elders of the Church as well as the apostles. so yes, there is historical precedent even for ordinary believers to be consulted and to speak.
I am glad that you're still able to bury your head in the sand enough to think that synodality is anything other than a mess. I don't think the Holy Spirit will allow the church to actually fall into error, but that doesn't mean he won't allow a pointless synod that leads many souls astray, given that the synod is not an organ of the magisterium, nor of governance.
I think the Holy Spirit allows the Church to fall into error all the time, otherwise our history wouldn't be so full of course-correcting! change is always needed, as the Church travels through time towards the fullness of understanding. tradition is always treason, as Latin phonetics suggest.
What reality? Your version of reality that is divorced from the truth of the Gospel? That is not reality, that is smoke and mirrors of the father of lies.
Wow, the Holy Spirit allowing the Church to be swallowed by the Father of lies. Some Holy Spirit. Or do you confuse the Holy Spirit with the father of lies that seem to be the spirit animating the higher echelons of the Church
What an extraordinary statement. First, the quotation that you're presumably alluding to, "Traduttore, traditore" doesn't mean that traditions are treason (betrayal), but that translation (from one language to another) can't help but betray the original. Second, to claim that tradition is treason means throwing out, among other things, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Timothy 1: 13. I think you'd better reconsider your position here.
Of course synodality is "a mess," Veritatem Quaero. As you'll recall, Francis issued his "make a mess" directive at the outset of his papacy, thereby implicitly giving the Germans license to attack doctrine in the name of "reform" that was actually "DEform." They took him at his word and ran with it. Now they and other heretics (whom Francis promoted and continues to promote) have gone so far as to threaten his own authority. Until he himself repents of his prideful efforts to remake the Church in his own image & likeness--efforts that the Germans were more than willing to support when it suited their purposes--he is as at least as culpable as they are for the doctrinal errors they advocate.
I agree with you that he has allowed heresy to spread unchecked within the church. The guarantee of infallibility isn't that the pope will always do a good job of governing the church and rooting out heresy, it's that when he teaches definitively he won't fall into error. And Francis barely even teaches coherently, let alone definitively.
I disagree. I think he has been very clear in stating the truth but not at all effective in enforcing what he says. Unless he starts excommunicating people, some of whom he put into their positions, this mess is going to continue. I pray for him daily and I hope you do too.
You can have synodality or you can have the all-singing, all-dancing Roman papacy. The latter of which, contrary to popular belief, got a booster shot at Vatican II.
Roman synodality is indistinguishable from a Soviet party Congress, right down to the repeated assurances that the people have a voice. The guy at the top is all that matters.
You still have Roman synodality. Orchestrated by the papal court and going according to its dictates. Starting with who is invited and who is not, and who writes up the reports. Nothing has changed from the Latin synods of the 20th Century save populist window-dressing. They are never going to be allowed to challenge, let alone modify, papal power.
Pope Francis assures us that he is a man of the church,. Nevertheless, some of his actions and appointments seem to be questioning the Deposit of Faith. I think this is what Bishop Strickland is getting at.
our faith is in a person, Jesus of Nazareth, not a deposit. deposit makes it sound more like a bank account. but yes, the faith is not static or unable to develop and change, so I have no problem with Francis allowing people to question and think about these things.
The deposit of faith is what Jesus left us and entrusted to the church. Jesus is God, so he did not make a mistake in leaving out something in the deposit of faith. Through the church, we can develop our understanding of the deposit of faith, but it will not change. Jesus got it right.
it's not a question of "Jesus making a mistake". it's a question of the Church through time coming to a fuller understanding of Jesus.
"This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her."
I mean what I said. why do you have to come and butt into other peoples' conversations with about fifty comments at once? one would have been enough to reveal your utter lack of understanding. unfortunately, there is nothing of substance in any of your comments for me to reply to.
my issue is not that you're commenting, it's that you're simultaneously replying to almost every comment I have made to everyone else. try picking your battles maybe?
As time goes by, I find (by fits and starts, slowly giving up the habit of biting sarcasm myself) that I prefer an author's yes to mean yes and his no to mean no, rather than his yes to really mean no and his no to really mean yes.
No, no, when +Strickland is sacked it will have nothing to do whatsoever with his strident tweets nor with his protests against the heroic and virtuous charity organization known as the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (of whom I have little doubt some or all of our beloved cardinals feel more kinship with than with their confrere in Tyler, TX). No, no, heavens no. You see, when +Strickland is sacked, it's because he's a poor bookkeeper. Right. That's the ticket. Nothing to see here. Move along.
well, according to this one priest that's the "primary" reason. I think it's about time something was done in response to his stupid tweets including his rejection of the "program" of Francis (which is simply the Gospel), as well as more generally his alignment with reactionary extremism in the USA.
“Synodality” is not the gospel. The gospel says that Jesus is The Way, not a bunch of self-important lay people sitting around tables in Rome.
I didn't mention synodality, and neither did Strickland in the tweet I referenced. I am speaking more broadly about the vision and theology of Francis, which is in every aspect informed by the Gospel. as for your description of synodality, it is not representative of reality. real synodality, walking together in prayer and listening to each other and to the Holy Spirit, is indeed based on the Gospel and the Scriptures.
No, but Francis does, regularly. Do you think I am mistaken that Francis believes his “program” to be synodality?
of course not! synodality is absolutely key to the vision of Francis. where I disagree is about what synodality is and whether it is being done effectively in the current synod.
Synodality is going to be the new socialism. Whenever it fails it will be because “real Synodality hasn’t been tried yet.”
yes. fortunately socialism and synodality were both tried and were remarkably successful in the early Christian community.
Hmmm, not that anachronistic old cliche. The early Church was in no way socialist. And synod was something it followed, not something it did.
you are badly mistaken, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. the early Christians effectively engaged in rudimentary, voluntary communism. they held everything in common and gave to each according to his or her need. some of those in the community who kept private property were killed by God. as for synods, it is absurd to think that you can follow what a synod says without first doing a synod.
Friend, you have no idea what scriptures I do or do not know, but seeing how you misrepresent the story of Ananias and Sapphira I wonder who is badly mistaken here.
But one thing that I do know is that “Synodality” is nothing that the Orthodox nor the Syro-Malabar nor the early church would recognize. We’re not doing a synod, it’s a total crock. I reject it utterly, Francis or no Francis.
I wonder why would we venture to call it "rudimentary, voluntary communism" when we could use even more words and call it "a rudimentary Catholic Worker movement" or use fewer words and call it "rudimentary monasticism" (these all sound equally silly to me, like debating whether it is correct to call a wolf a rudimentary large chihuahua; there is already a name for it, which is "a wolf", and we need not be self-congratulatory for having created dog pedigrees.)
If they did engage in rudimentary communism, then they were not Christians
The first seven Ecumenical Councils had those who disagreed with the decisions of those Councils. Yet they accomplished (without edicts from the bishop of Rome alone) proclaiming what is the orthodox Faith of the Church.
There were those who dissented and were truly heretics, some participants were confused by the linguistic differences amd.formula does in explaining the teaching proposed and received by most of the Church.
But it was these Councils that synodically, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit "nailed down" the essential truths of the Faith.
The pope did not impose these and in some cases was not asked to ratify the decisions of these Councils.
Unfortunately, the form of synodality at those Councils is not what is being touted as synodality today. They are two very different "creatures."
The decisions of those Sacred Synods were not based on broad consultations and opinions of every conceivable group or various individuals to set their teachings. It was the many bishops and other ecclesiastics that argued, discussed pulled beards and condemned each other who finally set down the truth.
Laity, and lower clergy "received" the teaching, some rejected them. The non Chalcedonian Churches and and some of the Syriac Churches are evidence of this.
Bottom line, it was the bishops of those Councils (not some broad consultations of everyone in creation) that proclaimed and annunciated the orthodox Faith.
The synodality of the seven Ecumenical Councils of the mainly undivided Church have very little in common with the SoS today.
your comment is mostly correct. when I said synodality was practiced early, I was referring to the New Testament, though of course later examples are also forms of synodality. the Jerusalem council for example seemingly had some "lay participation" (though as yet there were not clear lines between laity and clergy), believers who attended and even spoke at the council. it certainly included the elders of the Church as well as the apostles. so yes, there is historical precedent even for ordinary believers to be consulted and to speak.
Utter nonsense. If socialism was tried in the early Christian community, there would not be a Christian community to speak of.
Yes, we know. That is how he is wrecking the church.
I am glad that you're still able to bury your head in the sand enough to think that synodality is anything other than a mess. I don't think the Holy Spirit will allow the church to actually fall into error, but that doesn't mean he won't allow a pointless synod that leads many souls astray, given that the synod is not an organ of the magisterium, nor of governance.
I think the Holy Spirit allows the Church to fall into error all the time, otherwise our history wouldn't be so full of course-correcting! change is always needed, as the Church travels through time towards the fullness of understanding. tradition is always treason, as Latin phonetics suggest.
You appear to be another confused modernist who has lost his way in the dense thicket of Francis-isms.
and you're another confused trad or conservative who is utterly disconnected from reality.
Touche
What reality? Your version of reality that is divorced from the truth of the Gospel? That is not reality, that is smoke and mirrors of the father of lies.
Then you don't have a Catholic understanding of the Church. I'll pray for you.
wrong. my understanding is perfectly Catholic, and yours is ahistorical.
Wow, the Holy Spirit allowing the Church to be swallowed by the Father of lies. Some Holy Spirit. Or do you confuse the Holy Spirit with the father of lies that seem to be the spirit animating the higher echelons of the Church
What an extraordinary statement. First, the quotation that you're presumably alluding to, "Traduttore, traditore" doesn't mean that traditions are treason (betrayal), but that translation (from one language to another) can't help but betray the original. Second, to claim that tradition is treason means throwing out, among other things, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Timothy 1: 13. I think you'd better reconsider your position here.
I'm not throwing out anything. maybe go read some David Bentley Hart or something
Of course synodality is "a mess," Veritatem Quaero. As you'll recall, Francis issued his "make a mess" directive at the outset of his papacy, thereby implicitly giving the Germans license to attack doctrine in the name of "reform" that was actually "DEform." They took him at his word and ran with it. Now they and other heretics (whom Francis promoted and continues to promote) have gone so far as to threaten his own authority. Until he himself repents of his prideful efforts to remake the Church in his own image & likeness--efforts that the Germans were more than willing to support when it suited their purposes--he is as at least as culpable as they are for the doctrinal errors they advocate.
I agree with you that he has allowed heresy to spread unchecked within the church. The guarantee of infallibility isn't that the pope will always do a good job of governing the church and rooting out heresy, it's that when he teaches definitively he won't fall into error. And Francis barely even teaches coherently, let alone definitively.
Its imposible to teach coherently if you can't think coherently except perhaps when thinking of coprophagia
I disagree. I think he has been very clear in stating the truth but not at all effective in enforcing what he says. Unless he starts excommunicating people, some of whom he put into their positions, this mess is going to continue. I pray for him daily and I hope you do too.
The truth? Does he even know what it is?
I pray for his conversion.
He has already allowed heresy to be inserted into the Catechism so it's pretty hard to tell.
You can have synodality or you can have the all-singing, all-dancing Roman papacy. The latter of which, contrary to popular belief, got a booster shot at Vatican II.
Roman synodality is indistinguishable from a Soviet party Congress, right down to the repeated assurances that the people have a voice. The guy at the top is all that matters.
I will have synodality. the absolute papacy is overrated, much as I like Francis.
I suppose corrupting the church by diocese is more effective than doing it centrally
You still have Roman synodality. Orchestrated by the papal court and going according to its dictates. Starting with who is invited and who is not, and who writes up the reports. Nothing has changed from the Latin synods of the 20th Century save populist window-dressing. They are never going to be allowed to challenge, let alone modify, papal power.
it took you five months to reply?
And another six on top of that.
I'm afraid you've given the game away, and confirmed suspicions.
good. I never intended to keep "the game" secret. I have no problem with your evil suspicions being confirmed.
Pope Francis assures us that he is a man of the church,. Nevertheless, some of his actions and appointments seem to be questioning the Deposit of Faith. I think this is what Bishop Strickland is getting at.
our faith is in a person, Jesus of Nazareth, not a deposit. deposit makes it sound more like a bank account. but yes, the faith is not static or unable to develop and change, so I have no problem with Francis allowing people to question and think about these things.
The deposit of faith is what Jesus left us and entrusted to the church. Jesus is God, so he did not make a mistake in leaving out something in the deposit of faith. Through the church, we can develop our understanding of the deposit of faith, but it will not change. Jesus got it right.
it's not a question of "Jesus making a mistake". it's a question of the Church through time coming to a fuller understanding of Jesus.
"This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her."
You mean because the Apostles never really understood Jesus and somehow you in the 20th century know better?
I mean what I said. why do you have to come and butt into other peoples' conversations with about fifty comments at once? one would have been enough to reveal your utter lack of understanding. unfortunately, there is nothing of substance in any of your comments for me to reply to.
You post in an open board and you ask why people respond?
Try somewhere where it echoes. That might be more your cup of tea.
As for understanding, that's not been much in evidence in your posts apart from trotting out the tired old 60s usual blah blah
my issue is not that you're commenting, it's that you're simultaneously replying to almost every comment I have made to everyone else. try picking your battles maybe?
No. Just finding what you write lacking in what you call "understanding"
Others make more sense so I simply like their post.
How else do you know about the Person of Jesus of Nazareth except for the deposit of faith?
Francis won't know the Gospel if it him.
As time goes by, I find (by fits and starts, slowly giving up the habit of biting sarcasm myself) that I prefer an author's yes to mean yes and his no to mean no, rather than his yes to really mean no and his no to really mean yes.