https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/17tptg2/exclusive_bishop_joseph_strickland_breaks_his
i don't fully understand what's going on here but a lot of people are angry. There seem to be a few different types of comments:
Type 1: Strickland is a sede
Type II: Why didn't Francis fire the Germans?
Type III: Strickland is based and redpilled
Type IV: Something something Trump
All in all I recommend reading through all this.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/17thqz9/cardinal_daniel_dinardos_public_statement_on
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Allowing myself to be honest for a moment, I'm not a big fan of Francis. The limitations imposed on Tridentine Mass, and how soft he went on the Kraut bishops compared to Strickland are just not things that make me optimistic.
Nothing to do but go trust the plan mode, and hope for the best I guess.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
From an outside perspective tradcaths are in a rough position. In order to be a tradcath you have to:
1. See that the pope and many members of the church are trying to surreptitiously modernize church doctrine in a way that is incompatible with all of church history
2. Believe God will just, like, stop that from happening
It's clear to me that they're just going to let the Germs slide things more and more and only crackdown on radtrads when radtrads get slightly schismatic due to the Germs et al. Over time, the progs will start leaving the church or become "cultural catholic" celebrities (like Colbert for instance) who can say a Hail Mary but have no issue with abortion. The main body of the church will become more conservative but, as a consequence, sovereign states will start taking away Catholic land due to discrimination lolsuits or tax BS a la Bob Jones University. The catholic celebrities will bash the trads for not being enough like Jesus and then the world will probably end in a nuclear holocaust due to an India-Pakistan nuclear war.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Quite frankly, the idea of the Church that the trads are chasing isn't really the "2000 year old" institution meme that they love to spout. It's roughly 150-200 years old, dating back to Pius IX. The Latin Rite itself was formalized in 1570 with the Council of Treant, which (ironically enough) banned the other forms of mass. That being said, I can sympathize with the trad point about the Novus Ordo being a discontinuous practice, although I think a lot of trad rhetoric is farsical with its mental gymnastics, such as the aforementioned "unchanged for 2000 years" meme.
This already happened. That aside, many trads are not just regular rightoids, they are borderline far right or straight up far right. Go look at The Remnant of you want an idea of their chud levels.
Naw, it won't be discrimination lawsuits. It'll be s*x abuse stuff, which is also already happening. The Church has lost a ton of money from them. I do believe the measures the Church has put in place to curb abuse are working, but there's enough skeletons in the closet to continue to bleed the Church, as evidenced by the Rupnik stuff.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Tridentine Mass involves far more than speaking Latin and no EMHCs. Contemporary trads are basically hipsters drawn to esotericism in a foreign language.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Don't forget the self-loathing legalism, spiritual abuse, and latent homosexuals.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Then on the other side you have actual apostates whose lack of faith does show in their willingness to discard inconvenient teachings to gain acceptance from the world. Many act in bad faith but the Church is so weak (financially, in education to pass on the faith, in raw numbers, depending on location) that the hardline stance Trads call for on e.g. the German situation would lead to widespread repression and conflict. It's a fight we can't win currently.
My hope is that Pope Francis and a plurality of Cardinals see the situation for what it is and are simply attempting to weather the storm that a better age to fight might arise in the future. I pray that's not copium.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I think they would be heretics, not apostates. Apostate means one renounces the religion altogether so they wouldn't call themselves Catholic at all.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure I'm a heretic, myself. I've been doing a lot of deep research into the doctrine and history of the Church for the past 3+ months along with a lot of self-reflection. I just can't really find a way to completely agree with all of it; yes, I'm aware there are technically some parts you don't need to agree with, but to be frank, they are basically window dressing topics. I've prayed on it for a couple months to no avail, I've read the Church's justifications and other explanations to no avail. I'm attending mass weekly but I've decided not to take the Eucharist anymore because I'm not going to lie to myself and believe that I can just not think about the stuff and remain in a state of neither agreement nor disagreement, like some kind of mental Schrodinger's cat.
I have no expectation for the Church to change doctrine and I have no desire to try to push anything on it. The people that just want to change the Church for the sake of keeping up with social norms frustrate me quite a bit. However, I also get frustrated with the Catholics who spout stuff about the doctrine being "unchanging" for 2000 years while falling back on John Henry Newman whenever inconsistencies are brought up. The doctrine hasn't changed as much as most would think, but if you really dig into it and the Church's history, it becomes apparent that the "unchanging" claim is reliant on semantics, oversimplifications, and overlooking some historical details. Post-WW2 developments really mixed things up, but even the pre-WW2, Vatican 1 Church was not completely unchanged, IMO.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Message me or list the examples that are giving you pause and I'll check them out and provide my thoughts in dm.
I'm aware that we're currently doing a 180 on the death penalty, not sure which other ones you'd be referring to.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Off the top of my head, usury, the V2 interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, the Church abandoning its position on state-enforced Catholicism, the allowance for a geological age of the Earth (i.e. more than tens of thousands of years). The fact that Benedict XVI needed to establish the hermeneutic of continuity is basically a tacit admission of change. All that aside, doctrine from the past couple centuries seems more predicated on a relative lack of evidence of a universally established position on some issues.
I've already looked into these and the apologetics I've found are...not satisfying. They seem more like excuses intended to mollify those already convinced in the "unchanging" claim, rather than genuine arguments.
The "unchanging" claim isn't my only difficulty, either. There's stuff supposedly based on "reason" that doesn't really make much sense. IMO the inclusion of "reason" as justification is a relatively recent attempt (probably via the neoscholastic project) to compete with the body of Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment non-Catholic philosophy. It tries to string together a false continuity of thought from Church thinkers over the Church's history in the same way that "science" used to be thought of as a continuous line of advancement. The irony is that this 19th and early 20th century perception of science was demolished by Thomas Kuhn, such that there were usually various schools of thought that filtered through and/or coalesced over time. In a similar manner, there is a great diversity of thought through the Church's history (not even talking about the heretical stuff).
I could also go into the questionable justification of Treant's imposition of the state of grace requirement for partaking of the Eucharist, which is based on plain Biblical eisegesis that is apparent even in context of the passage from which the justification is taken (1 Corinthians 11:27-34).
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Just as a correction since it does seem like you actually care, Trent didn't change the requirements for participation in the Eucharist, โConfess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord's Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pureโ (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]). The Summa also definitely went into specifics on it... And while I couldn't find citations, first confession prior to communion in children became standard practice in roughly 8-900ad according to a random article. Maybe you meant something different?
Otherwise, Doctrine developed over time, with even core matters like the Trinity not defined as they currently are understood for centuries. You're correct on that, and acceptance of this is necessary to placing faith in any organized Christianity. I dunno what to say exactly that would be a "winning argument" because I've never really been confronted with "the Church never changes" arguments except from Tradicals who know less history than they claim. Hermeneutic of Continuity/Development is pretty clearly in line with norms from the first few centuries.
https://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html good essay on the subject.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Francis reinstating that one bishop who was caught on Grindr after only a year while going after clergy like Strickland is not a good look. However, the former was outed because of the trad faction purchasing data, iirc.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context