|
| ||
|
|
I don't think Kilcawley is likely to go there.
That is so true.
If the SSPX really wanted to do this, they should take his information, reformat it along the lines of Catholic thinking and Catholic principles, and re-present it to their faithful.
I don't like what is happening to the SSPX. It's been a gradual process since 2000. Little by little.drip, drip, drip
https://godly.com/en/authors/fr-sean-kilcawley (https://godly.com/en/authors/fr-sean-kilcawley)
Does anyone know who selected the speakers for the conference? Does anyone know the "artist" who painted the deformed ugly "hobbit-like" foot that is placed on top of Our Lady's foot on the serpent's head? It is very disturbing!You mean the Christ child's foot? That's from the Madonna and Child with St. Anne by Caravaggio.
It seems that novus ordo Fr Sean has created a cottage industry from sɛҳuąƖ addiction and pornography--a never ending source of income. Look into Set Free Global Summit, Integrity Restored, Avila Institue, and Covenant Eyes. His interviews reveal his own sin through graduate school at the JPII Institute in Rome and how psychologists/therapists helped him where priests did not (see The Regular Catholic Guy Show-"Combating the Destructive Impacts of Pornography with Fr. Sean Kilcawley-023). Surprise, surprise--he is an authority on Theology of the Body and he uses course, vulgar language at times--he's very trendy with the college Theology on Tap crowds.
It seems SSPX priests and laity are totally clueless about the evils of novus ordo thinking and agendas. Clueless or diabolically influenced? There is a definite difference from the true Roman Catholic priesthood so treasured by Archbishop Lefebvre protected through his Apostolic succession and the presiders of the novus ordo.
The SSPX is not deceived about Fr. Kilcawley:
If it wants in with the conciliar church, it must not only demonstrate to Rome that it can play nice in the sandbox with its former enemies, but even more importantly, “that there no longer be rejection in their hearts.”
So, while +Huonder celebrates Mass for the SSPX faithful in Switzerland, Fr. Kilcawley makes a maiden voyage to introduce (however restrained) a conciliar approach regarding a real modern problem, to SSPXers.
Relentlessly, but ever so subtly, these little conciliar advances turn up the temperature on the boiled frogs (who show every sign of enjoying the hot tub).
Hat-tip to Bishop Fellay (and Fr. Pagliarani), who, learning from Cranmer and Celier, knew just how to orchestrate -patiently, patiently- the reorientation of practically the entire SSPX and its base of faithful.
There are no protests in St. Mary’s (or anywhere else).
The SSPX in late 2019 is 99.5% purified of “dissidents,” and the plan to proceed by stages (today, nearly completed) is now on cruise control.
I remarked to a priest that it couldn't be the foot of Our Lord because it is not perfect and beautiful.
I would suggest that piety is somewhat misdirected if it asserts that Our Lord's foot was necessarily "perfect and beautiful," presumably with respect to how those terms are regularly used in a normal human context. A beautiful foot is almost invariably a pampered, cosseted foot, and Our Lord used his feet to the limits of His human strength during the years of His public ministry and probably in the preceding years, too. Indeed, it is hard to conceive of them as appearing anything other than bruised and calloused.These were precisely my thoughts, Claudel.
The abuse visited upon Our Lord's body by His tormentors during His Passion might in a sense be seen as merely an extreme instance of the travails He had willingly endured beforehand, all for the sake of our redemption.
Bizarre and perverted ... not unlike Christopher West. He claims that all the people who were about to stone the "woman caught in adultery" (Mary Magdalene) were looking at her with lust. His take, evidently, is that she was dragged out into the street naked and those picking up stones lusted after her. Typical Christopher West-like perversion. He has no business addressing Catholic youth..
.
Not Mary Magdalene !!!
.
Here is a sample of Kilcawley. Is this Catholic or Protestant? I can't tell which.Made it to 16 seconds - definitely protestant.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC7OUm8zc-A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC7OUm8zc-A)
Here is a sample of Kilcawley. Is this Catholic or Protestant? I can't tell which.
.
That's the Modernist position. Even Kilcawley thinks it's probably St. Mary Magdalene. Church Fathers traditionally held this woman to have been Mary Magdalene..
Actually, there's a lot of decent content there mixed in with the bad. Why can't a Traditional priest distill this and re-present it through a Traditional Catholic lense?
It's NOT Mary Magdalene. Private revelation says it's NOT.
...
Church fathers can be wrong on matters not pertaining to the Faith.
“She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary, we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark,”
Private revelation means nothing. And the Catholic principle is that in matters of interpreting Scripture the Church Fathers are the standard unless proven otherwise.Anne Catherine Emmerick means nothing?
Private revelation means nothing. And the Catholic principle is that in matters of interpreting Scripture the Church Fathers are the standard unless proven otherwise..
And before you say it so me (as usual), I say it to you:
You are an imbecile.
.
And if you are Matthew's friend, Matthew is an imbecile also.
Anne Catherine Emmerick means nothing?
Mary of Agreda means nothing?
The Church fathers were wrong about Geocentrism, so they should
stay out of the business of speculation and other matters that don't
pertain to the Faith.
.
Anne Catherine Emmerick means nothing?You obviously have no clue about Church teaching nor the teaching Church. In the scope of things, both of these lady’s have no standing when it comes to authoritative writing.
Mary of Agreda means nothing?
Nothing??
.
Then what do you mean?
.
Less than nothing.
You obviously have no clue about Church teaching nor the teaching Church. In the scope of things, both of these lady’s have no standing when it comes to authoritative writing.
I'll go with the consensus of the Church Fathers, and Pope St. Gregory the Great, first. Even many otherwise-Modernist sources have come to the conclusion that the woman is most likely St. Mary Magdalene..
With that said, there's no definitive explicit Church teaching on the matter, and you're entitled to an opinion. What I objected to as Modernist was the derogatory comments about the Church Fathers being wrong and needing to "stay out of" speculation (whereas it's OK for you). Modernists always have this hubris about how the ancients had it wrong and we moderns know better. You're just dripping with that mentality..
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
.
Is there any mention of "Mary Magdalene" in the story about
the adulterous woman in the Bible ?
.
No.
.
Therefore ... it's speculation.
.
The sound of your laugh is not pleasing to my ears.
The Church fathers were WRONG on Geocentrism, sorry.
You have just articulated a Protestantized Modernism in a nutshell.To be fair, you're referring to the teaching of the Western Fathers. The Eastern Fathers do not hold her to be the the woman in Luke 7, or John 8. This is a schismatic source, but it expounds on the subject:
Just because there's no explicit mention in the Scriptures regarding who this is, there's such a thing as an oral tradition. That is why the Church has always upheld the authority of the Church Fathers. Your claim that if something is not in Scripture, then it must be speculation is Protestant garbage. That's the same thinking that ultimately leads to rejecting Tradition as a source of Revelation. Because of their proximity in time to Our Lord, having been disciples of Apostles or disciples of disciples of Apostles/Evangelists, there's a very high probability that it was well known through an oral tradition that this woman was indeed Mary Magdalene.
So the Church has always upheld that a virtually universal Patristic understanding/interpretation of Scripture is authoritative and normative, to be accepted by Catholics unless definitely proven otherwise. Take your sola scriptura elsewhere, and stop pushing it on a Catholic forum.
The article says the Orthodox are unsure if St Mary was 1) the woman almost stoned to death, or 2) the woman who anointed Our Lord’s feet with her tears and perfume. ...But they do, apparently, agree that Our Lord freed her from 7 devils AND that her home town, Magdala, was totally immoral. So this leaves us with the same conclusion...St Mary was a converted prostitute, who became a great saint. Whether or not she was almost stoned or if she washed Our Lord’s feet is not important. It doesn’t change her horrible past, nor diminish her rise to sanctity.Pope Saint Gregory died in 604 A.D.
.
However, if I had to bet, I’d agree with Pope St Gregory and the Church Fathers. They would have learned directly from the Apostles and been able to ask questions about Scripture that we can only wish were possible. They had the opportunity to hear it directly from the source.
I'm not saying that Pope St Gregory was a Church Father; not even close. But if you look at what his papacy did, and what he concentrated on - Gregorian chant, codifying the canon of the mass, and the Gregorian calendar - you can see that his focus was in unifying Catholicism and in researching the past...something that the Church didn't have time to do in the first 300 centuries during the persecutions and also during all the heresies which came the centuries after that. So, his opinion on Scripture carries some weight, because it was one of the first times that the Church had time to "relax" and study the Latin Vulgate of St Jerome, which had only been completed less than 200 years earlier.
Nor do we even knowExactly!
1) how much of the writing attributed to them was actually their work or words (for all we know, 95% of Emmerich's work was concocted by Brentano)
2) how much if it was actual "revelation" vs. their own editorializing. They describe things that they see/hear or think they see/hear, and their descriptions necessarily entail a certain amount of interpretation
It's chiefly why the Church did not canonize them ... because it might have meant a tacit endorsement of everything in those works. It's well known that on a fair number of details the various recipients of the revelations have contradicted one another.
You guys have missed the point... you're referring to the Western position as if it's the Church's only position. The East considers the women found in Luke 7, John 8, and Mary Magdalene to be three different people. That has always been the Tradition of the Eastern Fathers. It's a perfectly Catholic position, unless you believe the Eastern Catholic Tradition to be subordinate to the Western Tradition... in fact, I'd say the Eastern Fathers (as a whole) far exceed the Western Fathers; save for the brilliance of a handful of Saints like Ambrose/Augustine. [emphasis added]
Without first proclaiming God's love, like what's my motivation to change my life? Because then the gospel easily becomes converted into this sort of set of standards that I have to achieve, and if I achieve those standards then God will reward me at the end of my life. I call it the "Gospel of the Suck." […] God created me to suffer? That's not what John Paul II is talking about. He said God created you goodHe's an enemy of the Holy Cross.