Catholic groups contradicting one another

[Greg]

The clue is in the word Traditionalism.

When the Church has done something or taught something for long enough and a Pope has bound it, codified it and demanded it not be changed, then no future Pope has the authority to unbind it.

This then guarantees logical consistency, which from a divinely revealed and protected religion is absolutely necessary and to be expected as a feature.  Tradition is a VITAL part of the Catholic religion.  Without which it is an ever changing creature and could morph into anything.

If ecumenism as practiced today is correct and the will of God then the Catholic Martyrs died painfully for nothing.  They died precisely because they would not pray, accept and co-mingle with heretic protestants.  If you resurrected them today they would think "why on earth did I bother?  What a senseless waste of human life. I could have been alive for my spouse and children who suffered after I was burned to death."

Otherwise, one has to believe that God's truth is mutable and the martyrs were right to die at the hands of protestants 500 years ago, but equally right today to be inviting them into their services and giving them communion.

This is nonsensical idea as to believe it one has to believe in a capricious god similar to the Greek gods who played with humans like they were toys.

[Mono no aware]

Otherwise, one has to believe that God's truth is mutable and the martyrs were right to die at the hands of protestants 500 years ago, but equally right today to be inviting them into their services and giving them communion.

This is nonsensical idea as to believe it one has to believe in a capricious god similar to the Greek gods who played with humans like they were toys.

Wouldn't God have already been capricious and Greek when he changed up the covenant with the Jews?  Only a minority of first-century Jews became Christian, and the reason was because they were appealing to tradition.  The traditional understanding of the Messiah was that he was supposed to be an earthly king who would usher in a grand Hebrew reign.  They also saw so many ancient traditions being jettisoned: circumcision, animal sacrifice, dietary laws, the Sabbath, &c.  To their lights, the original covenant was supposed to be everlasting.  Clearly God had not given his original people a proper understanding of what their own prophets had been foretelling.

"The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone."  The Second Vatican Council which the traditional Catholics rejected has become the cornerstone of the new springtime.

[Greg]

The answer to that is simple.

Tradition is the best guarantee of truth and sanity and righteousness in the ABSENCE of God showing up and giving redirection.

Once God turns up and works fantastic miracles to prove He is God, then you know you can trust Him and you can throw out any traditions He does not directly endorse.

God showing up is a reset and trumps tradition.  Between God showing up, you stick to tradition, because man can get these things horrendously wrong, but God cannot.

If Jesus shows up again, works enormous miracles and changes the rules I am ready to follow the new rules and ditch the old ones.

In fact, if there was a huge miracle over Rome that favoured Francis and made it clear he was favoured by God, I would wear sackcloth and ashes and walk to Rome on my knees.

But that ain't gonna happen.

[Sempronius]

The answer to that is simple.

Tradition is the best guarantee of truth and sanity and righteousness in the ABSENCE of God showing up and giving redirection.

Once God turns up and works fantastic miracles to prove He is God, then you know you can trust Him and you can throw out any traditions He does not directly endorse.

God showing up is a reset and trumps tradition.  Between God showing up, you stick to tradition, because man can get these things horrendously wrong, but God cannot.

If Jesus shows up again, works enormous miracles and changes the rules I am ready to follow the new rules and ditch the old ones.

In fact, if there was a huge miracle over Rome that favoured Francis and made it clear he was favoured by God, I would wear sackcloth and ashes and walk to Rome on my knees.

But that ain't gonna happen.

"Judge them by their fruits" is the method we received from Jesus. But the question is how much we should rely on our own judgement..

[Mono no aware]

The answer to that is simple.

Tradition is the best guarantee of truth and sanity and righteousness in the ABSENCE of God showing up and giving redirection.

Once God turns up and works fantastic miracles to prove He is God, then you know you can trust Him and you can throw out any traditions He does not directly endorse.

God showing up is a reset and trumps tradition.  Between God showing up, you stick to tradition, because man can get these things horrendously wrong, but God cannot.

But a majority of the first-century Jews didn't witness the resurrected Christ.  They were expected to take it on the second- or multi-hand accounts of people who were telling them to ditch their traditions.

[Daniel]

I would say that the differences are:

1.) The Jews could have understood the continuity between the Old Testament church and New Testament church if they wanted to, but they didn't want to.
cf. Traditionalists cannot understand the continuity between the pre-Vatican II Church and the post-Vatican II Counterchurch, because there is no continuity.

2.) The New Testament does not contradict the Old Testament, and, in fact, the Old Testament makes no sense without the New Testament.
cf. Vatican II contradicts tradition, and tradition makes perfect sense without Vatican II.

[Greg]

The answer to that is simple.

Tradition is the best guarantee of truth and sanity and righteousness in the ABSENCE of God showing up and giving redirection.

Once God turns up and works fantastic miracles to prove He is God, then you know you can trust Him and you can throw out any traditions He does not directly endorse.

God showing up is a reset and trumps tradition.  Between God showing up, you stick to tradition, because man can get these things horrendously wrong, but God cannot.

But a majority of the first-century Jews didn't witness the resurrected Christ.  They were expected to take it on the second- or multi-hand accounts of people who were telling them to ditch their traditions.

Who regularly worked miracles, spoke in tongues and died for their faith.  Huge difference between that and believing a faggot like Fr. James Martin.

[Greg]

The answer to that is simple.

Tradition is the best guarantee of truth and sanity and righteousness in the ABSENCE of God showing up and giving redirection.

Once God turns up and works fantastic miracles to prove He is God, then you know you can trust Him and you can throw out any traditions He does not directly endorse.

God showing up is a reset and trumps tradition.  Between God showing up, you stick to tradition, because man can get these things horrendously wrong, but God cannot.

If Jesus shows up again, works enormous miracles and changes the rules I am ready to follow the new rules and ditch the old ones.

In fact, if there was a huge miracle over Rome that favoured Francis and made it clear he was favoured by God, I would wear sackcloth and ashes and walk to Rome on my knees.

But that ain't gonna happen.

"Judge them by their fruits" is the method we received from Jesus. But the question is how much we should rely on our own judgement..

Who elses judgement do you have access to? 

I trust my own decision making.

[Michael Wilson]

Wouldn't God have already been capricious and Greek when he changed up the covenant with the Jews?  Only a minority of first-century Jews became Christian, and the reason was because they were appealing to tradition.  The traditional understanding of the Messiah was that he was supposed to be an earthly king who would usher in a grand Hebrew reign.  They also saw so many ancient traditions being jettisoned: circumcision, animal sacrifice, dietary laws, the Sabbath, &c.  To their lights, the original covenant was supposed to be everlasting.  Clearly God had not given his original people a proper understanding of what their own prophets had been foretelling.

"The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone."  The Second Vatican Council which the traditional Catholics rejected has become the cornerstone of the new springtime.

They forsook the revelation of the suffering Messiah as in Isiah ch. 53; for the sake of their false traditions (as Our Lord charged them with):

[3] Despised, and the most abject of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with infirmity: and his look was as it were hidden and despised, whereupon we esteemed him not. [4] Surely he hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows: and we have thought him as it were a leper, and as one struck by God and afflicted. [5] But he was wounded for our iniquities, he was bruised for our sins: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his bruises we are healed.

[6] All we like sheep have gone astray, every one hath turned aside into his own way: and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. [7] He was offered because it was his own will, and he opened not his mouth: he shall be led as a sheep to the slaughter, and shall be dumb as a lamb before his shearer, and he shall not open his mouth. [8] He was taken away from distress, and from judgment: who shall declare his generation? because he is cut off out of the land of the living: for the wickedness of my people have I struck him. [9] And he shall give the ungodly for his burial, and the rich for his death: because he hath done no iniquity, neither was there deceit in his mouth. [10] And the Lord was pleased to bruise him in infirmity: if he shall lay down his life for sin, he shall see a long-lived seed, and the will of the Lord shall be prosperous in his hand.

There is more that I could quote; but suffice it to say that Our Lord Himself told the Jews that because of the miracles that He worked in their midst and which they witnessed, they had no excuse for rejecting Him. 

[The Theosist]

Wouldn't God have already been capricious and Greek when he changed up the covenant with the Jews?  Only a minority of first-century Jews became Christian, and the reason was because they were appealing to tradition.  The traditional understanding of the Messiah was that he was supposed to be an earthly king who would usher in a grand Hebrew reign.

Was it? Or is that a rabbinical construction? One line of thought that became the "orthodox" position for post-exilic Jews? Maybe even one favoured in response to Christianity? But is this understanding of kingship even traditional? Was David considered a mere "earthly king" in his day? There is much to argue in favour of, for example, the ancient kings of Jerusalem being priests and standing as representatives of Yahweh on Earth, and that this tradition was erased and condemned by the Second Temple reformers who compiled much of the Old Testament. Certainly it is suggested of the pre-Hebraic kings of Jersualem in the figure of Melchizedek.

There are also the Dead Sea Scrolls, which paint a divine Messianic picture involving an eschatological struggle against the Devil. In fact, this Messiah is identified with Melchizedek and Michael, and the latter ties it into the "two powers in Heaven" tradition which was condemned by later rabbis, Michael taking the role of the "lesser Yahweh". Indeed, the name's only appearance in the Old Testament, in the book of Daniel, suggests as much in describing him as the prince of the Hebrew people in juxtaposition to the princes of Persia and Greece, as in "When the El Elyon gave the nations their inheritance, when He divided the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the bene-ha Elohim. But Yahweh's portion is His people, Jacob His allotted inheritance."

Why should we allow the inheritors of the Pharisees to determine for us what Hebrew tradition was?

They also saw so many ancient traditions being jettisoned: circumcision, animal sacrifice, dietary laws, the Sabbath, &c. To their lights, the original covenant was supposed to be everlasting.  Clearly God had not given his original people a proper understanding of what their own prophets had been foretelling.

Certainly not by Jesus himself, whom "they" had already rejected and crucified, "they" being the "orthodox" priest caste and political elite.

[Mono no aware]

Why should we allow the inheritors of the Pharisees to determine for us what Hebrew tradition was?

I'm not saying we should.  Nor am I suggesting first-century Judaism was monolithic.  They had their sacred scriptures, and scriptures can yield different interpretations—they almost always do.  Obviously there were some Jews who were able to accept the "suffering servant" Messiah, or be persuaded by the notion; otherwise Christianity would never have made it out of the gate.  All I am saying is that the prevailing interpretation must've been otherwise, since most Jews rejected the crucified Messiah.  Even St. Paul conceded that this was "a stumbling block to the Jews."  And he would know.  "A Hebrew of Hebrews."  He had been persecuting the Christians among the Jews as heretics.

Jesus himself had to admonish his own disciples on the road to Emmaus: "O foolish and slow of heart to believe in all things which the prophets have spoken."  They had been lamenting his death because "we hoped that it was he  that should have redeemed Israel."  So clearly they were thinking his Messiah-ness had been a wash-out upon the crucifixion.  That's why he had to school them: "and beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him."  If these two disciples are any indication, the common understanding among Jews was not that the Messiah would die an ignominious death.

[Mono no aware]

Who regularly worked miracles, spoke in tongues and died for their faith.  Huge difference between that and believing a faggot like Fr. James Martin.

I wonder when the miracle-working stopped.  Maybe it hasn't stopped altogether, but it doesn't appear to be a major part of apologetics anymore.  Mark 16:18 is pretty much swept under the rug, though you would think it would impress people if someone, say, drank a glass of tetrodoxin or cardiac glycoside digoxin and showed no ill effects.

[dellery]

You can make philosophical points all you want, PDR, but that doesn't change the fact that you're shilling Gnostic, Nazi, weirdness. Nothing will ever come close to the civilization those with faith in Jesus Christ built, and all of your hillrod, 4chan, identitarian, talking points can not diminish this. You're like a guy with a Mustang telling a guy driving a Ferrari that he bought the wrong car. When the impotent and probably castrated writers you read start building up centuries old civilizations then their writings will be more than the masturbatory squirts of bloviated stupidity they are now.

[Vetus Ordo]

The answer to that is simple.

Tradition is the best guarantee of truth and sanity and righteousness in the ABSENCE of God showing up and giving redirection.

Once God turns up and works fantastic miracles to prove He is God, then you know you can trust Him and you can throw out any traditions He does not directly endorse.

God showing up is a reset and trumps tradition.  Between God showing up, you stick to tradition, because man can get these things horrendously wrong, but God cannot.

If Jesus shows up again, works enormous miracles and changes the rules I am ready to follow the new rules and ditch the old ones.

In fact, if there was a huge miracle over Rome that favoured Francis and made it clear he was favoured by God, I would wear sackcloth and ashes and walk to Rome on my knees.

But that ain't gonna happen.

"Judge them by their fruits" is the method we received from Jesus. But the question is how much we should rely on our own judgement..

Who elses judgement do you have access to? 

I trust my own decision making.

Except you aren't to trust your own decision making.

That's not the Catholic model. Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon or Cranmer trusted in their own decision making vis-à-vis what they perceived to be the word of God and what the Church at the time taught. In the end, the only thing a Catholic has is the pronouncements of Rome. Nowadays, they tell us to accept Vatican II. If you want to remain in communion with the Roman See, and be a Catholic in the Tridentine sense, then you have to accept Vatican II. But if you accept Vatican II, you logically ditch Tridentine Catholicism. Welcome to the unsolvable conundrum.

[Croix de Fer]

Wouldn't God have already been capricious and Greek when he changed up the covenant with the Jews?

God didn't change the covenant with the Jews. Most Jews broke their covenant numerous times with God, and most of them ignored the prophesy and teaching that they must accept the final and everlasting Covenant - Jesus Christ.

The traditional understanding of the Messiah was that he was supposed to be an earthly king who would usher in a grand Hebrew reign.

That's where most of them got it wrong, hence, leading to them reject the Word becoming Flesh and dwelling among them first.  Only a true remnant of the Faith of Abraham - John the Baptist, Blessed Mary, Joseph, the disciples, etc - accepted the Christ. The Jews who rejected Him were even too blind to see the prophesy that many Jews would reject their own Messiah.

They also saw so many ancient traditions being jettisoned: circumcision, animal sacrifice, dietary laws, the Sabbath, &c. 

Those were ceremonial laws which are subject to change. Divine Law doesn't change and it didn't when Christ fulfilled the law and prophesy.

To their lights, the original covenant was supposed to be everlasting.  Clearly God had not given his original people a proper understanding of what their own prophets had been foretelling.

Their error and faithlessness is their own fault, not God's. He offered them the grace to see, hear and believe, but they continually rejected it. The Old Testament is filled with examples of the Jews repeatedly rejecting the God of Abraham and falling back to worshiping strange "gods" and reverting back to wickedness.