To: ultima ratio
Of course the authority of the pope is subject to Tradition. The question is, however, what is traditional and what is customary?
5 posted on
11/24/2002 8:59:58 PM PST by
RobbyS
To: RobbyS
It is a distinction without a difference. Customary means habitual practice, Tradition means that which is handed-down. None of this precludes gradual change, as the popes and councils themselves have taught and as Ratzinger is at pains to point out. What Tradition cannot be is revolutionary or radical.
No one can deny that what has been going on since Vatican II has been a radical assault on Tradition. The Novus Ordo was a fabrication to start with and a radical break with the past. But there have been many other departures from Tradition as well, both in what is taught and what has been doctrinally suppressed. This has been tantamount to a break with the faith itself.
Insofar as the Pope approves of such a course, he transcends his authority. In fact he has taken a solemn oath to do just the opposite and to defend Traditional teachings and practices. Thus the faithful are placed on the horns of a dilemma. They can either follow the novelties modernists are instituting with the approval of the Pope, or they can stick with Tradition and with the faith itself.
To: RobbyS
<> A good question. The answer is that Rome, the Pope, the Magisterium decides what is and isn't Tradition. Ultima and his ilk think they define what is and isn't Traditon.
The Pope occupies the seat of Divinely-constituted authority and Ultima and his ilk are slaves of Satan in their opposition to Divinely-constituted authority. It really is that clear-cut and straightforward. It is mere Christianity. :)<>
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson