Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Geremia on February 15, 2014, 02:55:26 PM
-
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/02/important-pope-francis-on-feb-14-young.html
IMPORTANT
Pope Francis on Feb. 14: "Old Mass? Just a kind of fashion!"
Yesterday (Friday, Feb. 14), Pope Francis held an audience with the Bishops of the Czech Republic who came to Rome for their ad limina visit.
In the visit, as it usually happens in such cases, other than the formal address, the Pope heard the questions and comments of the bishops. Archbishop Jan Graubner, of Olomouc, told the Czech section of Vatican Radio how it went:
[Abp. Jan Graubner speaks:] When we were discussing those who are fond of the ancient liturgy and wish to return to it, it was evident that the Pope speaks with great affection, attention, and sensitivity for all in order not to hurt anyone. However, he made a quite strong statement when he said that he understands when the old generation returns to what it experienced, but that he cannot understand the younger generation wishing to return to it. "When I search more thoroughly - the Pope said - I find that it is rather a kind of fashion [in Czech: 'móda', Italian 'moda']. And if it is a fashion, therefore it is a matter that does not need that much attention. It is just necessary to show some patience and kindness to people who are addicted to a certain fashion. But I consider greatly important to go deep into things, because if we do not go deep, no liturgical form, this or that one, can save us."
-
That man has no Catholic faith in him whatsoever and his election was invalid to begin with and also if he ever had been the pope his election is utterly and completely null and void and he is now to be deemed as an apostate by the church and he will be remembered as one.
-
The old Mass is much more beautiful than the Novus Ordo and I don't even understand Latin and don't use a missal. It is wonderful and the Novus Ordo is banal. I remember watching a video of Francis saying a Novus Ordo "Mass" before he was pope. He had people dressed up in hideous puppets. One of the puppets looked like Disney's Pinocchio. It was hideous. I don't understand how people can do such ugly things and think they are pleasing to God.
-
On the other hand, the part of the glass that it half full is his assertion that going deeply into liturgy is salvific.
-
.
Thank you Geremia, for this.
"When I search more thoroughly - the Pope said - I find that it [the ancient liturgy, the TLM] is rather a kind of fashion [in Czech: 'móda', Italian 'moda']. And if it is a fashion, therefore it is a matter that does not need that much attention. It is just necessary to show some patience and kindness to people who are addicted to a certain fashion. But I consider greatly important to go deep into things, because if we do not go deep, no liturgical form, this or that one, can save us."
Write it down on a 3x5 index card, to share with your friends at Mass tomorrow!!!
.
-
It is kind of Passion.
-
.. the Pope said - I find that it [the ancient liturgy, the TLM] is rather a kind of fashion [in Czech: 'móda', Italian 'moda']. And if it is a fashion, therefore it is a matter that does not need that much attention.
To Pope Francis way of thinking the Novus Ordo is a temporary fashion also, as everything is in perpetual flux, change for him, the liturgy, faith, morals, doctrine, all in perpetual change. Therefore, don't be surprised that he calls the Latin Mass a fashion.
-
Well, Pope francis heretic is just a kind of trend... like pet rocks or rubic cube
-
St Pius the 5th Canonized the tridentine mass. So how could it be just a fashion? The novus ordo missae was never canonised, and in fact THAT is the fashion, and the fashion of liberals.
-
:sad: sigh :sad:
-
Pope St. Pius V called down the wrath of God and the Apostles, Peter and Paul on anyone who would dare touch the Latin Mass. What would he do now that his Successor is saying something so disgraceful?
It's a disgrace! The Latin Mass is the True Mass, where God is given the greatest glory and not the people!
Anathamize the Novus Ordo! The sooner, the better!
-
I have never been accused of being fashionable before. Funny it should come from someone who got his picture on the cover of Rolling Stone.
-
I have to think that God is getting angrier and angrier.
-
This is nothing new. Wojtya believed that interest in the traditional Mass was merely a love of nostalgia on the part of some people who would come around eventually. Bergoglio has the same outlook.
-
LoT said:
Pope St. Pius V called down the wrath of God and the Apostles, Peter and Paul on anyone who would dare touch the Latin Mass.
As has been said many times, there were many changes to the TLM between 1570 and 1970.
-
Mr. Read-a-book, read this:
https://archive.org/stream/massstudyofroman00fort#page/208/mode/2up
The pre-1962 traditional Mass is still the same as St. Pius V's.
-
On the other hand, the part of the glass that it half full is his assertion that going deeply into liturgy is salvific.
Except he didn't say that, nor could it be inferred, given the fact that he believes the traditional form of the liturgy, with it's precise form, could be called a fad or a fashion.
The Novus Ordo is the fad and the constantly changing fashion, and an ugly one at that.
-
The pre-1962 traditional Mass is still the same as St. Pius V's.
But your book page say 'later revisions are of slight importance'. So, there were later revisions. Why are they of slight importance? That's essentially what Francis is saying about changing missals. Provide some sort of reason for what you think.
-
The pre-1962 traditional Mass is still the same as St. Pius V's.
But your book page say 'later revisions are of slight importance'. So, there were later revisions. Why are they of slight importance? That's essentially what Francis is saying about changing missals. Provide some sort of reason for what you think.
Meadowlark lemon- quit defending the indefensible. You are splitting hairs. The True Mass and the New Mass are not the same; the substance and form are different.
Your modernism is showing and your reading skills ain't so hot.
From Fr. Adrian Fortescue : " Our Canon is untouched, and all the scheme of the Mass. Our Missal is still that of Pius V. "
'bye sir.
-
Or, in other words 'because I say so, bye'.
Par for the course.
-
The Latin Mass...trending for 2,000 years!
:rolleyes:
Seriously, though I really do hope he converts.
-
The Latin Mass...trending for 2,000 years!
Maybe 1700.
You know the Greek Mass predated any in Latin, right? The Fathers didn't start even start writing theology in Latin until after 200 AD.
-
So, St. Peter celebrated mass in Greek, then?
-
Unknown. It would apparently have been either Greek or Aramaic. Almost certainly he was illiterate given that he had a personal scribe (St. Mark) as attested by St. Irenaeus.
-
That's interesting.
I would have just assumed he celebrated in Latin because he was in Rome, and having grown up in judea while it was a Roman province, I'd expect him to have been familiar with Latin.
-
Or, in other words 'because I say so, bye'.
Par for the course.
I think Fr. Adrian Fortescue was quoted, not "because I said so."
-
On languages, I certainly give the nod to St Peter speaking Aramaic while out and abouts but Hebrew when in a ѕуηαgσgυє. Jews are picky about that. Aramaic, while the lesser of the two in the Jєωιѕн world, is said by the same Jєωιѕн world to be the older of the two. Aramaic is held in high esteem because it is said to be the language of Abraham. As for Aramaic and Hebrew, they use the same alphabet and have the same pronunciations.
The switch to Latin, while I don't have the details in front of me, can be safely trusted to the guidance of the Holy Ghost and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. We can trust the Church on matters from the days of Our Lord to the election of Pope John XXIII. We can trust the Church now but that's an act of supernatural faith.
Pope Francis' words can be construed as a sloppy Hermeneutics of Continuity. He can think it's all a fad and he can be surprised at the youngsters who are attracted to Catholicism.
I myself will always be baffled by people who enjoy the novus ordo. When it's a clown mass, you can at least laugh.
-
ICTERUS is correct in saying that there were some minor word changes here and there. Some of those changes may have been with the addition of new dogmas or adding prayers for new saint days. Some changes may have just been clarifications or additions to procedural prayers.
-
That's interesting.
I would have just assumed he celebrated in Latin because he was in Rome, and having grown up in judea while it was a Roman province, I'd expect him to have been familiar with Latin.
Of course, if not for the sole reason that the Holy Ghost gave them all the gift of tongues
-
SJB wrote:
I think Fr. Adrian Fortescue was quoted, not "because I said so."
As usual, you don't know what's going on. You have a real talent for that.
I questioned why Fr. Fortescue can blithely say changes are insignificant and a poster can blithely cite him as an authority on that without offering any real argumentation. If the Pope calls down the vengeance of heaven for any changes, the one thing you cannot then do in debate is say 'well, any changes that were made are not significant'. That's dodging the issue and dishonest.
-
Of course, if not for the sole reason that the Holy Ghost gave them all the gift of tongues
On Pentecost. We have no idea whether it was extended. The presence of the attested interpreter and his authorship of Peter's gospel account would lead one to think not.
In any case, the Mass was in Greek before it was in Latin, and theresimply isn't any extant Catholic Latin before Tertullian, a century and half after St Peter.
-
Of course, if not for the sole reason that the Holy Ghost gave them all the gift of tongues
On Pentecost. We have no idea whether it was extended.
Is there any reason to doubt it wasn't "extended"?
-
Yes, as I posted, Irenaeus' testimony that Peter needed Mark as either a scribe or a translator or both. Further, if one reads the actual Pentecost account, one can see that the more persuasive interpretation of the text is that all of the foreigners present heard the preaching in their own tongue simultaneously, indicating it was a miracle of hearing, not of speaking.
-
I have never been accused of being fashionable before. Funny it should come from someone who got his picture on the cover of Rolling Stone.
This is so great. I wish I could have thought to have said this first. You win.
-
ICTERUS is correct in saying that there were some minor word changes here and there. Some of those changes may have been with the addition of new dogmas or adding prayers for new saint days. Some changes may have just been clarifications or additions to procedural prayers.
Nobody denies this but icterus is wrongly implying the NOM is somehow just another change in the Roman Missal.
-
SJB said:
Nobody denies this but icterus is wrongly implying the NOM is somehow just another change in the Roman Missal.
No, SJB, as usual you are a day late and a ton of reading comprehension short. I'm saying that it the Pope's position, and I'm challenging people to refute it logically and consistently, instead of poorly.
Work, really work, on that English comprehension. It will provide benefits you can't even dream of.
-
Nobody denies this but icterus is wrongly implying the NOM is somehow just another change in the Roman Missal.
Even Paul VI essentially said it was something new and shocking for the faithful.
-
Even Paul VI essentially said it was something new and shocking for the faithful.
So does Icterus.
-
It all comes down to this in the long run:
The mass of St Pius the fifth was canonized by him, the novus ordo on the other hand does not have that eternal protection, and one day, say in 50 years time when all of the noveltus orditities are dead due to old age, no, maybe 20 years time, well, anyhow it is inevitable, but what i am saying with this post is that the novus ordo will die eventually and within my lifetime, and the true mass of St Pius the 5th ++++++ will be the only valid alternative available to the western church. The fruits of the true mass are obvious, whereas there is nothing in the novus ordo except protestantism and rejection of church mind. So in the long run the vatican must admit that, and they must throw in their money with the only group that hold to church teaching.
-
We should all also pray to St Pius the 5th that we will get ever greater love of the true mass.
Do you know what? I confessed all my sins to priests ordained in the old rite ( just to be sure of my absolution), and when I went to the SSPX mass this sunday, I tell ya, the blessed sacrament never tasted so sweet.
-
Even Paul VI essentially said it was something new and shocking for the faithful.
So does Icterus.
I did not downthumb you Icterus, but maybe you could put something more humble in your signature other than praise of yourself. Look at the long prayer in my signature, I wrote that myself and I ever write things like this as a hobby. When i get tempted I can read my own writings and inspire myself towards holiness by reminding me of my occasional zeal. Just a kind piece of advice from someone who is not perfect, but who will be made perfect in Christ Jesus if I have anything to do with it.
-
I did not downthumb you Icterus, but maybe you could put something more humble in your signature other than praise of yourself. Look at the long prayer in my signature, I wrote that myself and I ever write things like this as a hobby. When i get tempted I can read my own writings and inspire myself towards holiness by reminding me of my occasional zeal. Just a kind piece of advice from someone who is not perfect, but who will be made perfect in Christ Jesus if I have anything to do with it.
...said the humorless Pharisee to the publican.
-
when I went to the SSPX mass this sunday, I tell ya, the blessed sacrament never tasted so sweet.
Be careful, sugar can render the matter invalid, and sweet taste would be a reason to suspect invalidity...
-
I did not downthumb you Icterus, but maybe you could put something more humble in your signature other than praise of yourself. Look at the long prayer in my signature, I wrote that myself and I ever write things like this as a hobby. When i get tempted I can read my own writings and inspire myself towards holiness by reminding me of my occasional zeal. Just a kind piece of advice from someone who is not perfect, but who will be made perfect in Christ Jesus if I have anything to do with it.
...said the humorless Pharisee to the publican.
Just out of curiosity, what are you "well informed" in?
Since you have it in your signature I have my curiosity evoked.
-
when I went to the SSPX mass this sunday, I tell ya, the blessed sacrament never tasted so sweet.
Be careful, sugar can render the matter invalid, and sweet taste would be a reason to suspect invalidity...
You dont seriously believe that they put sugar on the sacrament at an SSPX church...
I meant spiritually sweet.
-
Just out of curiosity, what are you "well informed" in?
Since you have it in your signature I have my curiosity evoked.
No idea. Cassini posted it, I'm just quoting it to provoke people like you.
-
You dont seriously believe that they put sugar on the sacrament at an SSPX church...
I meant spiritually sweet.
You are so blissfully unaware of being hoist by your own petard.
-
You dont seriously believe that they put sugar on the sacrament at an SSPX church...
I meant spiritually sweet.
You are so blissfully unaware of being hoist by your own petard.
Excuse me???
I am not really bothered by what someone like you will say to me. I am going to the pub now in a minute and there will speak of religion to the godless.
-
I am going to the pub now in a minute and there will speak of religion to the godless.
Please, don't. I don't want them thinking you in some way represent the Catholic Church.
-
Excuse me???
It's from Shakespeare, which is, like, books. So.
-
Just out of curiosity, what are you "well informed" in?
Since you have it in your signature I have my curiosity evoked.
No idea. Cassini posted it, I'm just quoting it to provoke people like you.
Well your plan did not work. I will say 12 Ave Marias for you and chill at the pub avec mes amis.
Farewell.
-
I am going to the pub now in a minute and there will speak of religion to the godless.
Please, don't. I don't want them thinking you in some way represent the Catholic Church.
I am very good at converting people. You cant stop me. Enough time wasted on you for one day.
Last piece of advice... go listen to Gregorian chant, or learn how to say the Confiteor.
Feeling sorry for you will not keep me online talking to you, but count on my prayers for def.
bye
-
I have to say the confiteor every time time I serve Mass. Twice, if it's an FSSP priest. It's an option in '62, you know.
-
Icterus, I do not debate you because you are too keen, slick and intelligent for me. You know what happened to Eve don't you?
What I said to you is what you have in your very own Avatar :" read a book". After you finally read Fr. Adrian Fortescue's book tell me if you can justifiably compose your question to include that concoction masquerading as the Roman Liturgy written in 1964 or so and beyond.
Btw, Fr. Fortescue does say the CANON remained unchanged so I guess the 1962 Mass may not be included in his statement.
What is par for your course is that you just do not see the whole picture. I think I would ask you to sew buttons on a coat but would never ask you to tailor one.
By the way folks Icterus knows I was not calling him names. The meadowlark is an icterid. Part of its anatomy is yellow.
Also, you are in my prayers.
Sorry to hit and run but that is just the way it's got to be with you. :fryingpan:
-
Btw, Fr. Fortescue does say the CANON remained unchanged so I guess the 1962 Mass may not be included in his statement.
Way to hide a complete capitulation in the text of a quick little note as you breeze by.
So, the '62 is not included in those missals which avoid the wrath of the Saints called down by Pope Pius V.
Fascinating.
Somehow, I suspect that (like Cassini's claim the Exsultet is Satanic) this will be studiously ignored by everyone.
-
Of course, if not for the sole reason that the Holy Ghost gave them all the gift of tongues
On Pentecost. We have no idea whether it was extended. The presence of the attested interpreter and his authorship of Peter's gospel account would lead one to think not.
In any case, the Mass was in Greek before it was in Latin, and theresimply isn't any extant Catholic Latin before Tertullian, a century and half after St Peter.
And your point is what, icterus?
It is true that the Church does not say that the Mass has to be celebrated everywhere in Latin. She has had any number of valid Masses in the vernacular: Slavonic (Glagolitic), Ukrainian, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic etc. Even though the Mass is celebrated in many places in the vernacular, the vernacular is NOT the norm. The norm is established by the Church. And the Roman Church decided long before Trent that the language of the rite in the churches in the territories specifically belonging to the Patriarch of the West (the Roman Pontiff) was not the vernacular but Latin.
Deviation from this in a widespread manner is a novelty, not a return to antiquity, as some will have us believe.
-
Btw, Fr. Fortescue does say the CANON remained unchanged so I guess the 1962 Mass may not be included in his statement.
Way to hide a complete capitulation in the text of a quick little note as you breeze by.
So, the '62 is not included in those missals which avoid the wrath of the Saints called down by Pope Pius V.
Fascinating.
Somehow, I suspect that (like Cassini's claim the Exsultet is Satanic) this will be studiously ignored by everyone.
Not by me, as I go to an older Mass. Anyway you keep doing your own drive-bys.
-
I have to say the confiteor every time time I serve Mass. Twice, if it's an FSSP priest. It's an option in '62, you know.
I thought the last confiteor was taken out of the '62 missal and was not an option, but people like Lefebvre put it back on their own because they thought it was better to say another confiteor before communion.
-
SJB wrote:
And your point is what, icterus?
As usual, your reading skills appear to be lacking.
The pithy comment "The Latin Mass has been trending for 2,000 years" (or something close to it) was made (which I think is pretty cute) and I simply corrected it to 'about 1,700'. The other posted asked me to clarify, and we have been discussing.
That's all. It's a side topic in a discussion about Pope Francis. I can see how a topic within a topic would probably blow all of your mental fuses.
It is true that the Church does not say that the Mass has to be celebrated everywhere in Latin. She has had any number of valid Masses in the vernacular: Slavonic (Glagolitic), Ukrainian, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic etc. Even though the Mass is celebrated in many places in the vernacular, the vernacular is NOT the norm. The norm is established by the Church. And the Roman Church decided long before Trent that the language of the rite in the churches in the territories specifically belonging to the Patriarch of the West (the Roman Pontiff) was not the vernacular but Latin.
Yeah. I know. Again, you need to work on your reading comprehension..your typing skills are obviously fine.
Deviation from this in a widespread manner is a novelty, not a return to antiquity, as some will have us believe.
SJB, you have your cranium so far in your own duodenum that you aren't following any of the discussions taking place. I'm not arguing for the vernacular. As you and the rest of the slack-jawed idiots seem eternally destined to keep forgetting, I'm a TLM'er.
Apparently, calling for honest argumentation that has rigor is far too complicated and nuanced a position for you to understand, and when your fuses blow, all you can come back to us 'Ugh, Icterus Bad. Icterus bad so he must like the Novus Ordo. Novus Ordo Bad! Icterus Bad! Icterus bad heretic!" and so forth.
-
Matto wrote:
I thought the last confiteor was taken out of the '62 missal and was not an option, but people like Lefebvre put it back on their own because they thought it was better to say another confiteor before communion.
I use the 'little red book' about serving the TLM. It says the second confiteor is an option in the '62. I'm just repeating what it says.
I have served for priests who learned the TLM in Rome at the NAC and they don't want the 2nd confiteor, and for SSPX priests trained in Nebraska, who all expect it.
That's all I know.
-
SJB wrote:
And your point is what, icterus?
As usual, your reading skills appear to be lacking.
The pithy comment "The Latin Mass has been trending for 2,000 years" (or something close to it) was made (which I think is pretty cute) and I simply corrected it to 'about 1,700'. The other posted asked me to clarify, and we have been discussing.
That's all. It's a side topic in a discussion about Pope Francis. I can see how a topic within a topic would probably blow all of your mental fuses.
It is true that the Church does not say that the Mass has to be celebrated everywhere in Latin. She has had any number of valid Masses in the vernacular: Slavonic (Glagolitic), Ukrainian, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic etc. Even though the Mass is celebrated in many places in the vernacular, the vernacular is NOT the norm. The norm is established by the Church. And the Roman Church decided long before Trent that the language of the rite in the churches in the territories specifically belonging to the Patriarch of the West (the Roman Pontiff) was not the vernacular but Latin.
Yeah. I know. Again, you need to work on your reading comprehension..your typing skills are obviously fine.
Deviation from this in a widespread manner is a novelty, not a return to antiquity, as some will have us believe.
SJB, you have your cranium so far in your own duodenum that you aren't following any of the discussions taking place. I'm not arguing for the vernacular. As you and the rest of the slack-jawed idiots seem eternally destined to keep forgetting, I'm a TLM'er.
Apparently, calling for honest argumentation that has rigor is far too complicated and nuanced a position for you to understand, and when your fuses blow, all you can come back to us 'Ugh, Icterus Bad. Icterus bad so he must like the Novus Ordo. Novus Ordo Bad! Icterus Bad! Icterus bad heretic!" and so forth.
Meltdown alert. :laugh1:
-
Nah. I've been on SJB for his inability to read for months now. Perhaps you suffer the same condition?
-
Thanks, icterus.
-
Let's ask ourselves to become armchair psychologists and figure out the motives of Pope Francis.
Is he just a standard run of the mill modernist?
Is he an innovator trying to take the Church in a whole new direction?
Does he have an implaccable hatred of Traditional Catholics?
What makes Pope Francis tick?
-
I notice nobody is saying anything about the serious attitude problem that Icterus has.
Seriously, what an asshole.
Icterus I dont think you are nearly as intelligent as you claim to be. I think that you are so high on your own unjustified pride that you condemn others because you secretly want to condemn yourself. Really, this is what I think of you. I feel sorry for you, and have prayed for you, but this insulting everyone with what you think is cultured slights has got to stop. You are not a better Catholic than me. You know nothing about me, nor what I have suffered for the faith, and Im not going to tell you either. You are not a man if you think you can say that shit to people who you dont know and could probably learn from. I read lots of theology and other things, but you dont see me claiming to be better than everyone else do you? I have retained my humanity with my faith. And PS, dont forget that you know nothing about who you insult. I thought we were all friends here, but apparently you use this forum as a vehicle with which to insult people whom you KNOW to be devout Catholics. And no, you do not bother me, and I dont think you are capible of it, because I couldnt give a F what you think of me or anybody else.
Cherrio. :smoke-pot: :cool:
-
Nah. I've been on SJB for his inability to read for months now. Perhaps you suffer the same condition?
The pithy comment "The Latin Mass has been trending for 2,000 years" (or something close to it) was made (which I think is pretty cute) and I simply corrected it to 'about 1,700'. The other posted asked me to clarify, and we have been discussing.
Why would you "correct" such a thing, when you know exactly what is meant?
-
I notice nobody is saying anything about the serious attitude problem that Icterus has.
I rebuked him yesterday for calling someone an idiot. I quoted the Gospel where Jesus warned that you could go to hell for calling another man a fool. He said that people often insult him here too, so I guess it goes both ways.
-
I notice nobody is saying anything about the serious attitude problem that Icterus has.
Seriously, what an asshole.
I'd get a language warning for that.
I rebuked him yesterday for calling someone an idiot. I quoted the Gospel where Jesus warned that you could go to hell for calling another man a fool.
And I made note of the fact that I have been called fool here many, many times (and much worse, see above) and no one else get condemned except me (Icterus bad! Icterus modernist! Ugh!), so beam, meet eye.
-
Why would you "correct" such a thing, when you know exactly what is meant?
Because, dearest SJB who knows not ever of what you speak, there is a strain of thought in Catholic Traditionalism once popularized by followers of Fr. Gruner which stated that Jesus taught the Mass in Latin, essentially as it was at the time of Trent, to the Apostles between the Resurrection and the Ascension.
That is nuttiness. An informed Catholic knows that the Mass took several hundred years (of well-known and attested ecclesial history) to reach that form. And, anyone should know about at least the Gregorian reforms.
So, it's another crackpot notion which is out there, Cathinfo seems like exactly the kind of place it would pop up, and so I spoke out about it.
As is my privilege until Matthew decides otherwise.
-
I notice nobody is saying anything about the serious attitude problem that Icterus has.
I rebuked him yesterday for calling someone an idiot. I quoted the Gospel where Jesus warned that you could go to hell for calling another man a fool. He said that people often insult him here too, so I guess it goes both ways.
I dont see why you defend him Matto. If anyone reads this thread he has been insulting several people including me, and I said nothing bad to him. One word in response to many for the sake of correction or advice is permissible, he might cop on one day. Dont believe that he is some misunderstood genius who comes here out of some altruistic charity for Catholics. He clearly hates us all, and he is becoming bolder in his contempt for the members of Cathinfo. I say that if he doesnt stop with his attitude he should be banned. But if he was and he comes back to give us more abuse, we will all spot him a mile away. He ought to apologize to everyone he has slighted and then go to confession and confess his mockery of others to a priest.
-
I notice nobody is saying anything about the serious attitude problem that Icterus has.
Seriously, what an asshole.
I'd get a language warning for that.
Yeah well it was said to describe your bad attitude. Matthew probably thinks that you need to be taken down several notches, so I have gotton no warning so far. But sure, report me to him and let him read the whole thread. I think he is man enough to tell you straight out to take it like a man and change your childish attitude.
-
Nah, I don't report people. Personally, I don't have a problem with harsh language, but I don't run the zoo here.
-
He ought to apologize to everyone he has slighted and then go to confession and confess his mockery of others to a priest.
As I've noted before, I've been threatened with actual bodily harm by a few of the worst nutcases on here, and one grand-high-poohbah idiot told me he'd actually kill me on sight, because he and I took differing paths to reconcile how scripture describes the hare as a ruminant.
So go sell your crap somewhere else. I'm responsible for my own sins, but good gravy, I'm not the problem here. You nutters are.
-
He ought to apologize to everyone he has slighted and then go to confession and confess his mockery of others to a priest.
As I've noted before, I've been threatened with actual bodily harm by a few of the worst nutcases on here, and one grand-high-poohbah idiot told me he'd actually kill me on sight, because he and I took differing paths to reconcile how scripture describes the hare as a ruminant.
So go sell your crap somewhere else. I'm responsible for my own sins, but good gravy, I'm not the problem here. You nutters are.
No, the problem is you. Your treatment of me is obvious. You have had an insulting hostile attitude towards me ever since you came on this forum, and not only me but others also. You cannot play the victim. You have insulted innocent people. This thread is a testament thereof.
-
I don't know enough about Pope Francis to know if he actually has a hatred of Traditional Catholics or the Traditional Latin Mass. However, he was a relatively young man when Vatican II happened. If he thinks change is perfectly natural, it is for material things and secular ideas, but if he thinks the Deposit of Faith is something to blend with the times, then he may as well be an avowed opponent of Tradition because he is one.
Does anyone here have any other guesses as to why Pope Francis would take a pot shot at some a small and harmless group?
-
I don't know enough about Pope Francis to know if he actually has a hatred of Traditional Catholics or the Traditional Latin Mass. However, he was a relatively young man when Vatican II happened. If he thinks change is perfectly natural, it is for material things and secular ideas, but if he thinks the Deposit of Faith is something to blend with the times, then he may as well be an avowed opponent of Tradition because he is one.
Does anyone here have any other guesses as to why Pope Francis would take a pot shot at some a small and harmless group?
He's not the Pope?
-
Because they aren't small and harmless to his intentions.
He will continually discount and ridicule all traditionalists and traditional devotions because they are a real and present danger to his designs. If they weren't, why keep harping on it and its "silliness"? He intends to undermine the traditionalist movement in every way that he can without coming out and calling it heretical. He knows that his ideas are against God and people are realizing that it's either his way or the truth. People seeking after God prefer truth. People seeking after themselves prefer his way.
If tradition wasn't a real threat to him, he wouldn't even bother himself with it.
-
I think Mama Chacha has it.
I might disagree with her on some details (who knows without discussing) but she is right on that Traditionalism is dangerous to his program.
I happen to think his program is a Rogerian non-confrontational dialogue with atheists...to which Traditionalists are a real complication.
I also don't think he's dumb. I think that he has identified Tradition as a threat, and I think he has the tools and knowledge to marginalize Tradition even more. In other words, I think he knows Trads, and knows them well. I think this is shown by the fact that he, among all people, spontaneously coined the term which first accurately describes the central probem Traditionalists face: self-referentialism.
-
Why would you "correct" such a thing, when you know exactly what is meant?
Because, dearest SJB who knows not ever of what you speak, there is a strain of thought in Catholic Traditionalism once popularized by followers of Fr. Gruner which stated that Jesus taught the Mass in Latin, essentially as it was at the time of Trent, to the Apostles between the Resurrection and the Ascension.
That is nuttiness. An informed Catholic knows that the Mass took several hundred years (of well-known and attested ecclesial history) to reach that form. And, anyone should know about at least the Gregorian reforms.
So, it's another crackpot notion which is out there, Cathinfo seems like exactly the kind of place it would pop up, and so I spoke out about it.
As is my privilege until Matthew decides otherwise.
I didn't think that "strain of thought" had been expressed, so why did you feel the need to address it? Then it took my criticism of you for us to actually know what "strain of thought" you were referring.
-
He ought to apologize to everyone he has slighted and then go to confession and confess his mockery of others to a priest.
As I've noted before, I've been threatened with actual bodily harm by a few of the worst nutcases on here, and one grand-high-poohbah idiot told me he'd actually kill me on sight, because he and I took differing paths to reconcile how scripture describes the hare as a ruminant.
So go sell your crap somewhere else. I'm responsible for my own sins, but good gravy, I'm not the problem here. You nutters are.
Icterus, you do have an attitude problem. You are implying pretty much everybody is a "nutter" who disagrees with you in the areas where you feel you are superior.
-
Nah. I've been on SJB for his inability to read for months now. Perhaps you suffer the same condition?
Hey, don't blame your meltdown on me Icky. :laugh1:
-
Icterus said:
I also don't think he's dumb. I think that he has identified Tradition as a threat, and I think he has the tools and knowledge to marginalize Tradition even more. In other words, I think he knows Trads, and knows them well. I think this is shown by the fact that he, among all people, spontaneously coined the term which first accurately describes the central probem Traditionalists face: self-referentialism
.
No dear, you may think he's got our number but that is only your misguided opinion.
Traditional Catholics' aim is to live in Christ. Our reference is Christo-centric. Our worship, familial and social lives, understanding of history and philosophy all center on our love of God and His creation. We strive to live our short lives in Him so that we end up with Him in heaven.
Charity is the key, and it is based on Our Lord's commandment to love God with our whole hearts, souls and minds and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Many of us fall short of the mark but that is the target.
I would not call that a problem.
-
SJB wrote:
Icterus, you do have an attitude problem. You are implying pretty much everybody is a "nutter" who disagrees with you in the areas where you feel you are superior.
Tell you what, as soon as you seen me threaten another person's life, call me on it and I'll admit I'm the same as you nutters. 'til then, no thanks. BTW, yes,I'm lumping everyone who watched that go down and posted nothing in response about the sanity of it in the same batch. Bunch of nutters.
Memento wrote:
No dear, you may think he's got our number but that is only your misguided opinion.
We're talking about the internal thoughts and attitudes of one man. Of course it's my opinion. Anything you write about it is your opinion. Duh.
Traditional Catholics' aim is to live in Christ. Our reference is Christo-centric. Our worship, familial and social lives, understanding of history and philosophy all center on our love of God and His creation. We strive to live our short lives in Him so that we end up with Him in heaven.
Oy, vey. Are you sure you aren't a robot?
Okay, let me explain it to you in small words. The above may well be true. We are talking about Francis. What do I think his attitude toward Traditionalism is? That the above is not true.
What do I think his intention toward Traditionalism is? To demonstrate to the world that the above is not true.
Do I think he is capable of this? Yes.
Why? Because he's smart.
Why do I think he is smart about it? Because he hits Traditionalism where it hurts.
What do I mean? He marginalizes Tradition at every opportunity, alternately identifying it as a meaningless affectation (the JPII diagnosis) or as a dangeous ideology.
Which of these two bothers me more? The 'dangerous ideology' one.
Why? Because the world has always accused Traditionalism of arrogance, and diagnosed the Trad refusal to submit to VII and modern innovations as born of pride. Francis is really pushing this diagnosis, even coining a technical-sounding term 'self-referentialism' to describe it.
And why is this dangerous? Because, when Trads fail, when they sin, when they fall prey to the snares the devil leaves for them, this is exactly how the fail, by making themselves an authority over the Church.
Man, Francis knows where to hit. I'm serious.
Charity is the key, and it is based on Our Lord's commandment to love God with our whole hearts, souls and minds and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Many of us fall short of the mark but that is the target.
I would not call that a problem.
Fine. Maybe you are right. Maybe Francis will do no damage. I disagree. I think he will do tremendous damage, because I think he will try to turn everyone against Traditionalism as an act of loyalty to the Church. This is new for the Papacy, IMO.
-
Tell you what, as soon as you seen me threaten another person's life, call me on it and I'll admit I'm the same as you nutters. 'til then, no thanks. BTW, yes,I'm lumping everyone who watched that go down and posted nothing in response about the sanity of it in the same batch. Bunch of nutters.
The above is precisely why I said what I said. All of those who don't agree with you or don't pay particular attention to you are just "nutters."
-
The above is precisely why I said what I said. All of those who don't agree with you or don't pay particular attention to you are just "nutters."
All those who subscribe to nutty conspiracy theories are nutters. All those who do nutty things are nutters. All those who, for instance, think it is a reasonable thing to, say, threaten someone with murder for taking a slightly different approach to reconciling why Deuteronomy calls a hare a ruminant when it has no rumen, are definitely nutters.
-
Just for the record, Bergoglio didn't coin the term self-referentialism. The term self-reference, which refers to recursive motifs in mathematics, philosophy and art, and has latterly been introduced into linguistics and psychology, has been used for many decades now. The concept, of course, is timeless; the explicit recognition of the concept goes back at least to Russell's Paradox and Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, which are notable examples of it.
But it is surpassingly curious that Bergoglio would apply this term to Traditional Catholicism. Catholic theology does not make use of recursive methods; Thomistic philosophy regards the appearance of recursion in an argument as fallacious, or at the very least evidence of an inaccurate parsing of the terms. I am unable to see how this is "a problem Traditionalists face," unless (as seems likely) Bergoglio has in mind only the social aspects of Traditional Catholic communities—which if true reveals a great deal about the man himself, for it shows all of the following:
A) His exclusively human-centered understanding of religion. For him, everything ultimately reduces to a social question. Traditionalism earns his ire because it is (in his view) closed off to the wider world and uninterested in the exciting "existential peripheries" of social engagement. This is both an insult and a canard, as I explain below.
B) His rejection of any spirit of renunciation or contemplation. One of the most ominous hallmarks of the Conciliar Church is its sumptuousness, its highly refined egotism which it hides behind a pretense of respect for life and concern for the poor. It positively exhorts and even commands all to feast at the banquet of life. This attitude, especially prominent in Paul VI, reinterprets Catholic doctrine with a Socialist-Humanist hermeneutic so that, while the same words and expressions are used, something different is meant. Thus Conciliarism's incessant carping about social justice stems not from any desire to do a good office for Christ by benefitting His poor servants, but a desire to "integrate them into the human community," that being the community of pseudo-religious aesthetes like themselves. It is actually an intolerance of the fact of poverty, an effeminate insistence that nothing must remain which disturbs the uninterrupted enjoyment of sensuous delights and vainglorious ostentation. The poor are an annoyance, you see, thus "poverty" must be "eliminated." How far these New Churchmen—who seem to think only of redistributing, never of renouncing, wealth—are from the spirit of the Gospel, can be seen from the example of the many saints who followed Christ's counsel to take no thought of riches or poverty, for both fetter us to the cares of this world. The Christian ought to live with a contented otherworldliness, not regarding the passing problems and anxieties of this life as something worthy of his complete attention. The desire to disengage from this world is a great sign of predestination and incipient sanctity, as one turns his thoughts and his entire being ever more fully toward God. Francis impugns this most holy and religious attitude in the person of the Traditionalists by calling them self-referential, hence the insult.
C) His total ignorance of the actual situation. While Traditional Catholics ought to live apart from this world, they very seldom do so. One of the chief complaints one hears from Traditional Catholics these days is the extent to which worldliness has seeped into the roots of their supposedly Traditional parish. It has at least been my own regrettable experience (and I think that I am not alone in this) that the people who attend Latin Masses are by and large just as worldly, just as interested in careerism, just as obsessed with professional sports, just as unknowing about the firm facts of the faith, just as likely to have supercilious daughters with facebook pages, just as convinced of the salutary effects of democracy—in a word just as steeped in the heresy of Americanism—as your average Evangelical Protestant; which is to say, not as much as your typical neo-pagan fellaheen worldling, but more so than is permissible. Bergoglio seems unaware of this ground-level reality within Traditionalist circles, hence the canard. All of this redounds finally to the confirmation of:
D) His grandstanding and bullying. Bergoglio's relentless attacks on Tradition seem utterly out of proportion when we realize that he is talking to a tiny fraction of a percent of all the world's Catholics, and moreover identifying them as the enemies of the Church's mission. Meanwhile, he has more than demonstrated his willingness to jump on board with the popular cause celebres of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and ecuмenism. These are two sides of the same coin. Traditionalism is a threat to Bergoglio's "mission" in the same sense that Christ is always scandal to the world, that much is true. It is also unquestionably true that he seeks to damage the credibility of the Trads, but I think this is more of an instinctive response with him than part of a Machiavellian ploy. In either case, he is definitely lacking in supernatural vision and is an untrustworthy guide in spiritual matters. If I'm wrong and he is a Machiavel, than he is exceedingly wicked to boot. However (and I shall close with this point), I would not think that Bergoglio's use of the bully pulpit, as it were opposing the power of the papacy to Traditionalism, really hits Trads where it hurts. The mere fact of being a Traditionalist has meant at the very least ignoring if not opposing the power of the papacy for the last fifty years. Bergoglio's gambit depends on a loyalty which is no longer really there. Traditionalists already stand condemned in the eyes of the world, so trying to further pillory them before the world will not hurt them much either. I conclude that the most likely explanation of Bergoglio's behavior is that he is himself jealous for the praise and approval of the world. He neither knows nor cares much for anything else.
Sic transit gloria mundi was the phrase uttered to every true pope of the Catholic Church upon his coronation, as a patch of burning straw turned to ashes in his hands. How the Conciliar popes have forgotten that fact, along with everything else.
-
The above is precisely why I said what I said. All of those who don't agree with you or don't pay particular attention to you are just "nutters."
All those who subscribe to nutty conspiracy theories are nutters. All those who do nutty things are nutters. All those who, for instance, think it is a reasonable thing to, say, threaten someone with murder for taking a slightly different approach to reconciling why Deuteronomy calls a hare a ruminant when it has no rumen, are definitely nutters.
I do wonder why you are here in the first place. Does it make you feel superior?
-
Man of the West wrote:
D) His grandstanding and bullying. Bergoglio's relentless attacks on Tradition seem utterly out of proportion when we realize that he is talking to a tiny fraction of a percent of all the world's Catholics, and moreover identifying them as the enemies of the Church's mission. Meanwhile, he has more than demonstrated his willingness to jump on board with the popular cause celebres of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and ecuмenism. These are two sides of the same coin. Traditionalism is a threat to Bergoglio's "mission" in the same sense that Christ is always scandal to the world, that much is true. It is also unquestionably true that he seeks to damage the credibility of the Trads, but I think this is more of an instinctive response with him than part of a Machiavellian ploy. In either case, he is definitely lacking in supernatural vision and is an untrustworthy guide in spiritual matters. If I'm wrong and he is a Machiavel, than he is exceedingly wicked to boot. However (and I shall close with this point), I would not think that Bergoglio's use of the bully pulpit, as it were opposing the power of the papacy to Traditionalism, really hits Trads where it hurts. The mere fact of being a Traditionalist has meant at the very least ignoring if not opposing the power of the papacy for the last fifty years. Bergoglio's gambit depends on a loyalty which is no longer really there. Traditionalists already stand condemned in the eyes of the world, so trying to further pillory them before the world will not hurt them much either. I conclude that the most likely explanation of Bergoglio's behavior is that he is himself jealous for the praise and approval of the world. He neither knows nor cares much for anything else.
First off, thanks for the information on self-referentialism. I suspect he is not using it in the proper/classical way. I'd like to discuss his exact use of it, perhaps it's worth a thread.
Second, the above paragraph is of great interest to me. I'd like to discuss:
D) His grandstanding and bullying. Bergoglio's relentless attacks on Tradition seem utterly out of proportion when we realize that he is talking to a tiny fraction of a percent of all the world's Catholics, and moreover identifying them as the enemies of the Church's mission. Meanwhile, he has more than demonstrated his willingness to jump on board with the popular cause celebres of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and ecuмenism.
Yes, it is incomprehensible except (in my opinion) from one viewpoint. The Pope is a Jesuit who says of himself that he 'learned a new way of leading' during his early years as a superior. I suspect that this new way of leading was simply the most popular 'new way of leading' in New World religious communities in the 1970's, Rogerian Conflict Resolution.
The Rogerian method seeks to form a non-hierarchical engagement space, in which all parties arrive as equals to state their positions. The facilitator makes statement of recognition of the validity of these positions within the personal context of the speakers.
I would propose "If a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ is honestly seeking God, who am I to judge" as a perfect Rogerian statement of personal context.
Leading is done, in the this system, by the facilitator, after hearing the positions of all parties and confirming the situational legitimacy of these position, suggesting his desired course of action as a viable alternative which all parties should accept for their own self-interest.
In this system, the only person who is not graced with the facilitator's benevolent confirmation of personal validity is the one who will not submit to the process. You can consult the classic 'One flew over the cuckoo's nest' and the character of Randall McMurphy for a study. In practical terms, the only 'wrong' in the Rogerian system is to say the system has no validity. In therapy, for instance, to say that a person's context is invalid because it does not reflect reality. In the Church, the corresponding action would be to quote Church docuмents and insist that the Teaching is not infinitely malleable. This is an attack on the process itself.
That's why.
It is also unquestionably true that he seeks to damage the credibility of the Trads, but I think this is more of an instinctive response with him than part of a Machiavellian ploy. In either case, he is definitely lacking in supernatural vision and is an untrustworthy guide in spiritual matters. If I'm wrong and he is a Machiavel, than he is exceedingly wicked to boot. However (and I shall close with this point), I would not think that Bergoglio's use of the bully pulpit, as it were opposing the power of the papacy to Traditionalism, really hits Trads where it hurts.
Depends. It's going to damage the FSSP perhaps beyond repair. It will dry up the indult Masses and those communities. The SSPX is in a different place, and what effect he can have on it is a matter of debate and for the future.
The mere fact of being a Traditionalist has meant at the very least ignoring if not opposing the power of the papacy for the last fifty years. Bergoglio's gambit depends on a loyalty which is no longer really there. Traditionalists already stand condemned in the eyes of the world, so trying to further pillory them before the world will not hurt them much either. I conclude that the most likely explanation of Bergoglio's behavior is that he is himself jealous for the praise and approval of the world. He neither knows nor cares much for anything else.
As I stated above, I think he is running a much more sophisticated game. I think he is literally trying to run, not just the Church, but the entire world like a South American Jesuit house.
-
I do wonder why you are here in the first place. Does it make you feel superior?
See above exchange between me and 'Man of the West'. I'm learning from it. That's why.
-
I do wonder why you are here in the first place. Does it make you feel superior?
See above exchange between me and 'Man of the West'. I'm learning from it. That's why.
If that is why you are here, why is it that such a large proportion of your posts consist of nothing more than frustrated, childish ranting about "nutters"? :laugh1:
-
I do wonder why you are here in the first place. Does it make you feel superior?
See above exchange between me and 'Man of the West'. I'm learning from it. That's why.
If that is why you are here, why is it that such a large proportion of your posts consist of nothing more than frustrated, childish ranting about "nutters"? :laugh1:
:cool: :smoke-pot:
-
If that is why you are here, why is it that such a large proportion of your posts consist of nothing more than frustrated, childish ranting about "nutters"?
Because the nutters afflict me. You are among them. Why do so many of your posts concern me?
I have about a half-dozen male posters on here who have some sort of fascination with me. I'll not go into the possible reasons why, but I'll tell you right now - I'm straight, and I have no interest in you romantically. I'm married.
-
If that is why you are here, why is it that such a large proportion of your posts consist of nothing more than frustrated, childish ranting about "nutters"?
Because the nutters afflict me. You are among them. Why do so many of your posts concern me?
I have about a half-dozen male posters on here who have some sort of fascination with me. I'll not go into the possible reasons why, but I'll tell you right now - I'm straight, and I have no interest in you romantically. I'm married.
I think you kinda like it.
-
If that is why you are here, why is it that such a large proportion of your posts consist of nothing more than frustrated, childish ranting about "nutters"?
Because the nutters afflict me. You are among them. Why do so many of your posts concern me?
I have about a half-dozen male posters on here who have some sort of fascination with me. I'll not go into the possible reasons why, but I'll tell you right now - I'm straight, and I have no interest in you romantically. I'm married.
Why are you bringing ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity into all of this? Who the hell just tells people, completely out of the blue and for no reason whatsoever, that he is not a sodomite? :laugh1:
-
If that is why you are here, why is it that such a large proportion of your posts consist of nothing more than frustrated, childish ranting about "nutters"?
Because the nutters afflict me. You are among them. Why do so many of your posts concern me?
I have about a half-dozen male posters on here who have some sort of fascination with me. I'll not go into the possible reasons why, but I'll tell you right now - I'm straight, and I have no interest in you romantically. I'm married.
I have seen no evidence of what you speak of, and I am on this forum on a daily basis. You are paranoid at the moment because you think that you have some vulnerability that people on this forum will exploit. Therefore your incessant defensive attitude and violent language towards virtually everyone. Now I would like to know what your vulnerability happens to be, in order that we can reassure you that we do not infringe on your beliefs if you happen to be a traditional Catholic, however, since you mentioned sodomy, I suspect there lies the root of your defensive attitude, and suggest that perhaps you suffer from some sort of sɛҳuąƖ inferiority complex?
How does it feel to be psychoanalysed Icky?
-
Who the hell just tells people, completely out of the blue and for no reason whatsoever, that he is not a sodomite?
Someone being pursued by a group of strange men.
Seems reasonable to me.
I think you kinda like it.
Ah, there's one of my Holy Trads, blameless in the sight of God.
I get taken to task for calling someone foolish, but doing this, well, this is just in good fun, ain't it?
Crossbro? Soulguard? Either of you feel like calling down the wrath of God on 2Vermont? No? Didn't think so. Hypocrites.
Like I've been saying, Trads are often lovely, lovely people who would make anyone say "My! What awesome people! I wonder what religion they are, that I may follow it too!".
-
I get taken to task for calling someone foolish, but doing this, well, this is just in good fun, ain't it?
Wait, I thought it was because you insinuated that your critics are sodomites? :laugh1:
-
:laugh1: :smoke-pot:
Time to smoke some tobacco.
-
Wait, I thought it was because you insinuated that your critics are sodomites? :laugh1:
I'm the evil modernist in the room, remember? Hell-bound and all that.
-
Icterus said:
Oy, vey. Are you sure you aren't a robot?
Mr. Nice guy, what a gentleman!
You misunderstood me and I misunderstood you. Because you so often do, I thought you were making a cutting remark about traditionalists again and you were agreeing with Francis about us being "self referential" with the negative spin attached. I have heard the same disgust from my own family who think I should go against the faith than disappoint them.
Yes, I get it. What thinking Catholic doesn't these days? Living a life in Christ is the kind of self referentialism that Francis hates. The world hates it - it is not LUV. They want us to accept every moral offense - worse yet, they want us to embrace every offense to God.
He is dangerous to Catholics because he is ostracizing us and making our lives more difficult. In some way, Francis is the present mouthpiece for the one worlders.
Have you had your life disrupted yet because of your faith? Since you are a convert I suspect you have but now you and the rest of us can get ready for complete marginalizing by Francis and the elite. They are just in first gear.
If you cut out the sarcasm I'll talk to you otherwise forget it.
-
Francis' ideals are placed on a pedestal by those who live by relativism and more people are taking notice because this guy is so loquacious and in the news.
The governor of New York state recently told prolifers and anti-gαy people that they were not welcome in his state. Huh.
Whether or not these people just think alike or they are part of a concerted effort to change the world doesn't matter because the results are the same. How do you think marginalization starts?
What's ironic is that non practicing Catholics admire Francis - people who have not stepped foot into a church for Sunday worship for 40 years and now resent traditional Catholics for not following his version of the faith.
-
Who the hell just tells people, completely out of the blue and for no reason whatsoever, that he is not a sodomite?
Someone being pursued by a group of strange men.
Seems reasonable to me.
I think you kinda like it.
Ah, there's one of my Holy Trads, blameless in the sight of God.
I get taken to task for calling someone foolish, but doing this, well, this is just in good fun, ain't it?
Crossbro? Soulguard? Either of you feel like calling down the wrath of God on 2Vermont? No? Didn't think so. Hypocrites.
Like I've been saying, Trads are often lovely, lovely people who would make anyone say "My! What awesome people! I wonder what religion they are, that I may follow it too!".
Like I said, you're enjoying all of this attention. Just an observation. Not a condemnation on your soul.
-
Just for the record, Bergoglio didn't coin the term self-referentialism. The term self-reference, which refers to recursive motifs in mathematics, philosophy and art, and has latterly been introduced into linguistics and psychology, has been used for many decades now. The concept, of course, is timeless; the explicit recognition of the concept goes back at least to Russell's Paradox and Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, which are notable examples of it.
But it is surpassingly curious that Bergoglio would apply this term to Traditional Catholicism. Catholic theology does not make use of recursive methods; Thomistic philosophy regards the appearance of recursion in an argument as fallacious, or at the very least evidence of an inaccurate parsing of the terms. I am unable to see how this is "a problem Traditionalists face," unless (as seems likely) Bergoglio has in mind only the social aspects of Traditional Catholic communities—which if true reveals a great deal about the man himself, for it shows all of the following:
A) His exclusively human-centered understanding of religion. For him, everything ultimately reduces to a social question. Traditionalism earns his ire because it is (in his view) closed off to the wider world and uninterested in the exciting "existential peripheries" of social engagement. This is both an insult and a canard, as I explain below.
B) His rejection of any spirit of renunciation or contemplation. One of the most ominous hallmarks of the Conciliar Church is its sumptuousness, its highly refined egotism which it hides behind a pretense of respect for life and concern for the poor. It positively exhorts and even commands all to feast at the banquet of life. This attitude, especially prominent in Paul VI, reinterprets Catholic doctrine with a Socialist-Humanist hermeneutic so that, while the same words and expressions are used, something different is meant. Thus Conciliarism's incessant carping about social justice stems not from any desire to do a good office for Christ by benefitting His poor servants, but a desire to "integrate them into the human community," that being the community of pseudo-religious aesthetes like themselves. It is actually an intolerance of the fact of poverty, an effeminate insistence that nothing must remain which disturbs the uninterrupted enjoyment of sensuous delights and vainglorious ostentation. The poor are an annoyance, you see, thus "poverty" must be "eliminated." How far these New Churchmen—who seem to think only of redistributing, never of renouncing, wealth—are from the spirit of the Gospel, can be seen from the example of the many saints who followed Christ's counsel to take no thought of riches or poverty, for both fetter us to the cares of this world. The Christian ought to live with a contented otherworldliness, not regarding the passing problems and anxieties of this life as something worthy of his complete attention. The desire to disengage from this world is a great sign of predestination and incipient sanctity, as one turns his thoughts and his entire being ever more fully toward God. Francis impugns this most holy and religious attitude in the person of the Traditionalists by calling them self-referential, hence the insult.
C) His total ignorance of the actual situation. While Traditional Catholics ought to live apart from this world, they very seldom do so. One of the chief complaints one hears from Traditional Catholics these days is the extent to which worldliness has seeped into the roots of their supposedly Traditional parish. It has at least been my own regrettable experience (and I think that I am not alone in this) that the people who attend Latin Masses are by and large just as worldly, just as interested in careerism, just as obsessed with professional sports, just as unknowing about the firm facts of the faith, just as likely to have supercilious daughters with facebook pages, just as convinced of the salutary effects of democracy—in a word just as steeped in the heresy of Americanism—as your average Evangelical Protestant; which is to say, not as much as your typical neo-pagan fellaheen worldling, but more so than is permissible. Bergoglio seems unaware of this ground-level reality within Traditionalist circles, hence the canard. All of this redounds finally to the confirmation of:
D) His grandstanding and bullying. Bergoglio's relentless attacks on Tradition seem utterly out of proportion when we realize that he is talking to a tiny fraction of a percent of all the world's Catholics, and moreover identifying them as the enemies of the Church's mission. Meanwhile, he has more than demonstrated his willingness to jump on board with the popular cause celebres of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and ecuмenism. These are two sides of the same coin. Traditionalism is a threat to Bergoglio's "mission" in the same sense that Christ is always scandal to the world, that much is true. It is also unquestionably true that he seeks to damage the credibility of the Trads, but I think this is more of an instinctive response with him than part of a Machiavellian ploy. In either case, he is definitely lacking in supernatural vision and is an untrustworthy guide in spiritual matters. If I'm wrong and he is a Machiavel, than he is exceedingly wicked to boot. However (and I shall close with this point), I would not think that Bergoglio's use of the bully pulpit, as it were opposing the power of the papacy to Traditionalism, really hits Trads where it hurts. The mere fact of being a Traditionalist has meant at the very least ignoring if not opposing the power of the papacy for the last fifty years. Bergoglio's gambit depends on a loyalty which is no longer really there. Traditionalists already stand condemned in the eyes of the world, so trying to further pillory them before the world will not hurt them much either. I conclude that the most likely explanation of Bergoglio's behavior is that he is himself jealous for the praise and approval of the world. He neither knows nor cares much for anything else.
Sic transit gloria mundi was the phrase uttered to every true pope of the Catholic Church upon his coronation, as a patch of burning straw turned to ashes in his hands. How the Conciliar popes have forgotten that fact, along with everything else.
Great post. And boy, is point C ever true!
Just to add to the main idea of Point C, and to wallow a bit further in despair, those who are not completely worldly seem to have a good chance of entering into some form of a lunatic fringe.
-
icterus wrote:
As I stated above, I think he is running a much more sophisticated game. I think he is literally trying to run, not just the Church, but the entire world like a South American Jesuit house.
This was the last sentence of another fine post in this thread. But could you please explain a little more about your perception of South American Jesuit houses?
As written, you are scaring the hell out of me. But perhaps with a little more clarification and understanding, I will be able to see it in a more balanced light.
-
This was the last sentence of another fine post in this thread. But could you please explain a little more about your perception of South American Jesuit houses?
Okay. This is just a working theory of my own.
In the 1960's a leadership model which grew out of the non-directed psychotherapy of Carl Rodgers became very popular in USA convents. At some points, at least, it was called 'Therapy for Healthy People'. Today, as very vastly developed and codified by the LCWR (the nuns on the bus folks) it is called 'systems thinking'. It has many analogues in business and education.
It is very difficult to summarize and do it justice.
Very, very basically, it is a technique for leading that avoids conflict by convincing the parties involved that their grievances were properly understood and that the solution proposed benefits them personally and that they have chosen to participate in the solution freely.
It is very different from an authoritarian model.
Pope Francis, in his interviews, has said that, as a young superior, he learned a 'new way of leadership'. It is highly likely this is that way. It was the right place at the right time, as Rogerian techniques diffused through the Americas, and I think it fits his style.
For this reason, I've been watching Francis for signs of this technique.
It's my opinion that his cozying up to gαys and diminishing protests and abortion is the first stage of the Rogerian technique, the creation of a non-hierarchical, non-judgemental engagement space.
I could be wrong. Or he may die before he reaches the end of the program. Who knows.
PS - BTW in this model, the only people who would be 'punished' are those who refuse to engage the program. I diagnose this to be why Trads are getting the short end of the stick. Trads insist on authority and definite guidance.
-
This was the last sentence of another fine post in this thread. But could you please explain a little more about your perception of South American Jesuit houses?
Okay. This is just a working theory of my own.
In the 1960's a leadership model which grew out of the non-directed psychotherapy of Carl Rodgers became very popular in USA convents. At some points, at least, it was called 'Therapy for Healthy People'. Today, as very vastly developed and codified by the LCWR (the nuns on the bus folks) it is called 'systems thinking'. It has many analogues in business and education.
It is very difficult to summarize and do it justice.
Very, very basically, it is a technique for leading that avoids conflict by convincing the parties involved that their grievances were properly understood and that the solution proposed benefits them personally and that they have chosen to participate in the solution freely.
It is very different from an authoritarian model.
Pope Francis, in his interviews, has said that, as a young superior, he learned a 'new way of leadership'. It is highly likely this is that way. It was the right place at the right time, as Rogerian techniques diffused through the Americas, and I think it fits his style.
For this reason, I've been watching Francis for signs of this technique.
It's my opinion that his cozying up to gαys and diminishing protests and abortion is the first stage of the Rogerian technique, the creation of a non-hierarchical, non-judgemental engagement space.
I could be wrong. Or he may die before he reaches the end of the program. Who knows.
PS - BTW in this model, the only people who would be 'punished' are those who refuse to engage the program. I diagnose this to be why Trads are getting the short end of the stick. Trads insist on authority and definite guidance.
Yes, the Carl Rogers and Maslow models were used to destroy the Immaculate Heart nuns. But isn't it an authoritarian model by another name? Basically it would seem to me this is simply a way of finessing the objector. In other words, they may say something like, "I hear and understand your concerns, however...". Then they go into their personal reasons for exploring and adopting a relativistic solution to whatever the problem may be.
And you are right, I would refuse to engage in these programs and I could definitely see myself in Jack Nicholson's shoes in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. This approach is very feminine.
Either way, I was really asking you what you mean by South American Jesuit Houses wanting to take over the world. What do you know about their philosophy? I get that you see this as their primary method. But what are their primary objectives as you see them? Communist liberation theology?
-
But what are their primary objectives as you see them? Communist liberation theology?
Francis says no to that, and his economic thoughts are very mild, so maybe he's being straight on that issue.
No, I think it's relativist ethics and ecuмenism on the bleeding edge of indifferentism, for the sake of temporal harmony.
An old story.
-
This was the last sentence of another fine post in this thread. But could you please explain a little more about your perception of South American Jesuit houses?
Okay. This is just a working theory of my own.
In the 1960's a leadership model which grew out of the non-directed psychotherapy of Carl Rodgers became very popular in USA convents. At some points, at least, it was called 'Therapy for Healthy People'. Today, as very vastly developed and codified by the LCWR (the nuns on the bus folks) it is called 'systems thinking'. It has many analogues in business and education.
It is very difficult to summarize and do it justice.
Very, very basically, it is a technique for leading that avoids conflict by convincing the parties involved that their grievances were properly understood and that the solution proposed benefits them personally and that they have chosen to participate in the solution freely.
It is very different from an authoritarian model.
Pope Francis, in his interviews, has said that, as a young superior, he learned a 'new way of leadership'. It is highly likely this is that way. It was the right place at the right time, as Rogerian techniques diffused through the Americas, and I think it fits his style.
For this reason, I've been watching Francis for signs of this technique.
It's my opinion that his cozying up to gαys and diminishing protests and abortion is the first stage of the Rogerian technique, the creation of a non-hierarchical, non-judgemental engagement space.
I could be wrong. Or he may die before he reaches the end of the program. Who knows.
PS - BTW in this model, the only people who would be 'punished' are those who refuse to engage the program. I diagnose this to be why Trads are getting the short end of the stick. Trads insist on authority and definite guidance.
"non-hierarchical, non-judgemental engagement space."
Good Lord, with limp-wristed phrases like this being typed out with a straight face, it's no wonder there's some sodomite panic going on in this thread.
Would it be overly simplistic and anti-intellectual of me to simply chalk all of this up to Modernism? Who cares if it's a fetish for the Rodgerian or Kantian or Hegelian or existentialist or Freudian or Jungian variety that this Pope or any other prelate personally holds dear? All of this shit (for shit is what it is - vile errors deserve vile names) flows down into that same "Sewer of All Heresies" that St Pius X warned the Church about.
It is not merely "trads" who "insist on authority and definite guidance" - It is Catholic Tradition; the Catholic Faith itself that demands it.
All of this hair splitting over what brand of modernism appeals to the current occupier of the Throne of St Peter is of very limited usefulness, and in fact serves to obscure what is otherwise a very clear problem - The Modernist Crisis.
A prominent Freemason - it may have been Albert Pike, but I'm not entirely sure (sorry to those footnote-obsessors out there) once said that it would not be necessary or even desirable to have a Freemason sitting on the Throne of St Peter - it would suffice to simply have a man who thinks like one elected pope. I think that's what we have here - a man whose formation and education has been so thoroughly corrupted with non-Catholic and anti-Catholic modernistic rot that he believes implicitly what the Lodge professes, regardless of whether or not he is a member.
-
Would it be overly simplistic and anti-intellectual of me to simply chalk all of this up to Modernism?
:applause:A prominent Freemason - it may have been Albert Pike, but I'm not entirely sure (sorry to those footnote-obsessors out there) once said that it would not be necessary or even desirable to have a Freemason sitting on the Throne of St Peter - it would suffice to simply have a man who thinks like one elected pope.
That is a quote from the French Freemason Jacques Mitterrand:Something has changed within the Church, and replies given by the Pope to the most urgent questions such as priestly celibacy and birth control, are hotly debated within the Church itself; the word of the Sovereign Pontiff is questioned by bishops, by priests, by the faithful. For a Freemason, a man who questions dogma is already a Freemason without an apron.
(from John Vennari's pamphlet on the Alta Vendita (http://Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყwatch.org/alta_vendita.html))I think that's what we have here - a man whose formation and education has been so thoroughly corrupted with non-Catholic and anti-Catholic modernistic rot that he believes implicitly what the Lodge professes, regardless of whether or not he is a member.
indeed