Posted on 07/15/2003 2:07:08 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
On the contrary, if it's valuable, it will stay. This idea that all of extrinsic tradition has been cast aside after Vatican II is just laughable. Bishops still wear rings, just not with $10,000 stones in them, just as few wear jeweled mitres or carry gold crosiers.
I'm glad that the Church has tried to simplify many externals and become less regal in its bearing.
Celibacy is a discipline, and the Pope's opinions on political issues are fair game.
The trads often accuse the Pope of misleading the faithful in matters liturgical and doctrinal.
No comparison.
Maybe you ought to define what you mean by extrinsic tradition. I take it to mean trappings, and customs, and the like which have no real bearing on doctrine.
What do you take it to mean?
Perhaps of interest to you, Weakland did not wear a ring and positively avoided the 'kneel and kiss the ring' thing.
Whether or not one wants to marry is a mature decision, and can't be made at the age of 13.
The Confiteor (as you know) is one of the optional penitential rites in the Novus Ordo. What is the purpose of the Introit or the Last Gospel?
They're just not essential. One could say the same about the Sign of Peace, which could be eliminated tomorrow AFAIC.
Actually it was Fr. Rutler speaking on EWTN about 10 years ago, who first began the process of my conversion to tradition. He was giving a talk on modern philosophies, and he was comparing the Catholic tradition of realist philosophy with the false and dangerous modern philosophy of phenomenology. I asked myself, "Wait a second, isn't the pope a phenomenologist?" That small pebble started the landslide until finally I realized that everything I had been accepting as part of the Catholic Church was "false and dangerous." I even had participated in Renew -- at a parish that was famous for being ultra-conservative. The pastor of this same ultra-conservative parish told my wife it was okay to use contraception. Then I realized that phenomenology was the underlying philosophy for the Church's new approach to morality as well. The whole thing was built on a lie; every bit of the "post-conciliar Church" was based upon a false and dangerous philosophy.
Bishops should wear rings; most of them opt for the plain gold band that JP II wears.
I don't wear a wedding ring. I've got some strange (and rare) allergic reaction to rings or watches made with precious metal. I've never been able to wear jewelry, and have to wear a cheap watch with a leather band.
No medals around the neck, either. The brown scapular is all I can wear, which I've worn since I was in grade school.
Mary made that promise, you know, to those who wear her scapular, and I'm holding her to it.
My wife said if she couldn't wear jewelry she'd kill herself.
;)
The whole problem with the pope's method is that it embraces the modern philosophy of Hegel.
Perhaps his work, which has been around for over twenty years, is still largely unexplained because it is utterly unexplainable.
He is attempting a synthesis of Phenomenology to Thomism according to the modern philosophy of Hegel.
Hardly a "pastoral" approach is it -- for the Pope to write documents that no one can read? Isn't it ironic that in the days before the Church became "pastoral," the popes wrote in plain English (translated from the Latin of course) that anyone could read and understand.
even the MOST conservative theologian I know has mentioned, frequently, that the Church has often, and successfully, "baptized" non-Catholic concepts for Her own, and better, use.
This is easily and frequently misunderstood. There are natural goods which can be put to a supernatural purpose. But something which is inherently bad can never be "baptized." The Church has never taken the tradition of temple prostitutes and "baptized" it. Nor can it take a false and pernicious philosophy like Hegel's and baptize it. Aristotle outlined the basic principles of logic and reason which are natural goods and in no way contradictory to divine revelation.
Thus, a reconciliation of Hegel to Aquinas is not, in itself, some sort of launch into Protestantism
No, it's much worse than that. It's a launch into the post-modern world materialism, skepticism, and ultimately atheism.
the Pope is a fairly smart guy, and he is informed by REALLY good sources from above
It is not Catholicism to believe that the pope receives direct divine inspiration. No one ever said the pope was Delphic oracle. His inspiration should come from Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium, just like all other Catholics. The most dangerous possible aberration most likely to destroy the Catholic faith in the shortest possible time is to believe that the pope is some sort of medium for transmitting messages from heaven.
if his attempted reconciliation does not work, the Faith has not been compromised.
I see the faith compromised all around me. The new method is not to come right out and to make heretical declarations like Luther or Calvin. The more sophisticated method is to effect a reconciliation between truth and error, without ever directly denying the truth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.