RNC time!
The invocation was quite partisan. I understand wanting to pray for a certain type of leader. I sure do, so I understand people praying for party X or Y. May not agree with their choice of candidates, but I understand.
It's okay to pray for good leaders. Of course, I think NOTA would be a good leader, but I'm not going to slaughter people for praying for Obama or McCain.
But what happens when it becomes politicized? What happens when slogans are tossed into a prayer? Well, I throw up, that's what. Country first should never, ever, be in a prayer to God. Perhaps the state, but never to God who cares more about if you served the poor and fed he hungry than if you served or fed the state.
A prayer for service to the state? Instead of praying that people give up their interest to serve the state (as if politicians aren't power hungry and self-aggrandizing), we should pray that more people give up their self interest to serve God in the priesthood. Or serve the poor through charitiy and volunteering.
And what is wrong with self interest? Often self interest brings good things. For example not many musicians play music to contribute, or serve, to the culture. Yet they serve society, for better or worse, through their self-interest.
Let's put the spiritual side of things away for a moment. Let's say I donated $100,000 to a charity to have an award named after me. Is that $100,000 worth the same if I did it annonymously? Of course! It may be selfish to do it so I can have something named after me, but the ends will be the same!
There's something scary about the melding of the Church and State. Especially when the state becomes the Church!
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Friday, February 15, 2008
Story about the SSPX and my position on them
http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/487355.html
Now, I'm not a fan of forced equality, but I am a fan of eqality (argh you're a modernist!!) and that's just...strange and an assortment of nuts. I can't believe I thought about going there. It's for the better, Kansas' weather sucks bigtime anyhoo.
I used to be a big time fan of their's, but now I can't stand it (though I know/know of a few really good folks that go to their Masses). I'm willing to accept that they're not in schism. However, they would be in "partial communion" meaning they're in "partial schism". I took the route of "Communion with Rome is more dear than life" and abandoned them. Of course, some of the fanatics made me incredibly ticked off.
Long live the FSSP and other approved groups!
Now, I'm not a fan of forced equality, but I am a fan of eqality (argh you're a modernist!!) and that's just...strange and an assortment of nuts. I can't believe I thought about going there. It's for the better, Kansas' weather sucks bigtime anyhoo.
I used to be a big time fan of their's, but now I can't stand it (though I know/know of a few really good folks that go to their Masses). I'm willing to accept that they're not in schism. However, they would be in "partial communion" meaning they're in "partial schism". I took the route of "Communion with Rome is more dear than life" and abandoned them. Of course, some of the fanatics made me incredibly ticked off.
Long live the FSSP and other approved groups!
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
More on the Pope and the Jews
Seems like SSPXers fall into a few camps. First, those who outright reject the changes to the prayer. Second, those who are waiting for Fellay to give a statement. Third, those who have accepted it.
I think the prayer is good and just worded differently.
The first camp us split into three groups: Those who reject it for tradition, those that reject it for ambiguity, and those that reject it because of the circumstances.
The latter group makes me confused. Reject it based on why it was written and not content? Not a good excuse. I don't like why, but still accept it as perfectly orthodox.
I see no ambiguity in the prayer. They're likely just looking for something that's not there and inerpreting it wrong. Kind of like looking for shapes in clouds. (False analogy! Piss off...)
Based on tradition? Well, argumentfrom tradition. We don't do something because it's tradition. We have tradition based on a solid point. For example, we shouldn't recieve the Eucharist on the tongue because it's tradition. Instead, we should because of the possibility of abuse. Tradition exist because there's a reason to have it. We sholdn't do it for Tradition, but for the reason. The reason for the prayer for the Jews? To convert them! The changes are okay because the reason is kept and it's just re-worded.
Then there's those waiting for the SSPX's Bishops to speak about it. I absolutely don't like that. The Pope is the leader of the Church. We would't wait for a Duke to tell us if the King's law is good or not! We have to follow the Pope in all things but sin. That's the one time we could be disobedient. Instead of following the Bishop and SSPX, follow the Pope. The prayer change isn't sinful at all.
Then again, those awaiting the SSPX's position are the ones that are most likely to call him a Modernist while still claiming he's the Pope (Fr. Morrison aside, of course)
I think the prayer is good and just worded differently.
The first camp us split into three groups: Those who reject it for tradition, those that reject it for ambiguity, and those that reject it because of the circumstances.
The latter group makes me confused. Reject it based on why it was written and not content? Not a good excuse. I don't like why, but still accept it as perfectly orthodox.
I see no ambiguity in the prayer. They're likely just looking for something that's not there and inerpreting it wrong. Kind of like looking for shapes in clouds. (False analogy! Piss off...)
Based on tradition? Well, argumentfrom tradition. We don't do something because it's tradition. We have tradition based on a solid point. For example, we shouldn't recieve the Eucharist on the tongue because it's tradition. Instead, we should because of the possibility of abuse. Tradition exist because there's a reason to have it. We sholdn't do it for Tradition, but for the reason. The reason for the prayer for the Jews? To convert them! The changes are okay because the reason is kept and it's just re-worded.
Then there's those waiting for the SSPX's Bishops to speak about it. I absolutely don't like that. The Pope is the leader of the Church. We would't wait for a Duke to tell us if the King's law is good or not! We have to follow the Pope in all things but sin. That's the one time we could be disobedient. Instead of following the Bishop and SSPX, follow the Pope. The prayer change isn't sinful at all.
Then again, those awaiting the SSPX's position are the ones that are most likely to call him a Modernist while still claiming he's the Pope (Fr. Morrison aside, of course)
Saturday, December 8, 2007
A Letter to Reactionary Traditional Catholics
There are a lot of good Catholics out there, so this letter, that no one is likely to read, isn't geared towards you.
To those unsavory ones who poison the faith and "movement" for the rest of us, shame on you. Feminism is not the biggest problem to arise since the plague. You were likely raised in WASP America and born after or not too long before the Council. You see the evils in the world and react against them. Most react appropriately and call a spade a spade. Others call the spade a weapon of mass destruction and act accordingly.
Radical feminism ought to be fought, but feminism itself is not a bad thing. We should remember that in Protestant nations women were held back, In Catholic ones, they were much more free. The United States is a protestant nation and women were more oppressed than they were in Catholic nations (thanks to Puritanism).
You fight it by saying women should not go to universities. You say that women shouldn't wear pants no matter what. If that's your opinion and how you live your life, fine. Never ever tell others who do wear pants or go to universities to stop. That isn't your right. It is not sinful. There is a distinct difference between women pants and men pants. I challenge you to buy a pair of feminine pants, go into a dressing room, and try them on. If there's no such thing as feminine pants, you shouldn't object. If you won't for thesake of modesty, buy them and try it on at home. No one is going to see you.
The moment you start harrassing women who do things you don't approve of and the Church allows, you became the very thing you hate. There's not much of a difference between radical feminists and radical tradidionalists.
Like I said, if you want to wear dresses exclusively, be my guest...just don't force others to wear them.
Beyond this, I'm sickened with the extremists' attitude towards women. As women, they deserve respect even if they refuse to act like it. Let's say you treat a masculine female horribly. Are you going to treat an effeminate man like you would a female? Of course not! The logic just doesn't work out.
You view the world and reject the little good and cling to what you think is good. The only reactionaries like yourself are anti-Catholic Fundamentalist Protestants. Why read books written by protestants and not Novus Ordo Priests? In your opinion, aren't they pretty much on the same level? If you can weed out the bad from the good, why can't you with modern Catholic books?
We don't have many good Catholic examples in this country, so we subconsciously look up to those who also hate modern society. As a result, a subset of traditionalists who think it's their right to force their views of morality where the Church allows us to choose on fellow Catholics.
Who knows how many tradition loving Novus Ordo Mass goers are turned off by the whole "feminist" issue?
While I think homeschooling is best for a child, I do realize that some Catholic women can't do it and it's their right to raise their children however they want as long as it isn't against any Church teachings or dangerous to their faith.
I never hear any women who wear pants, send their kids to school, or anything else you reactionary radicals happen to believe in acct the same way towards you. I never once read a traditional Catholic woman say to another "Yeah, you should really get rid of the dress and wear pants. You're in an occasion of sin-pride" or "You really should send your kids off to school they're going to be dumb!"
No, I never did read it. Wearing dresses exclusively is not going to cause most people to be proud. Wearing pants aren't going to turn them into raging radical feminists. Most homeschoolers are smart, and so are most trad kids who went to school. It has more to do on how they're raised.
So please, before you start declaring things ex-cathedra from your armchair, remember that the Church never officially taught that women pants are sinful. You wouldn't like it if someone incaded your house and told you what to do. Not all pantswearers are raging feminists, especially traditional women.
As a result of these obervations, I am officially announcing that I am going to attend "Indult" and NO Masses exclusively since the types I'm talking about tend to dislike those two groups and avoids them.
To anyone that misinterpreted this-This is not targeted to everyone that wears dresses exclusively. This is targeted at people who feel the need to be a pope from their computer chair and try to speak infallibly on matters not defined by the Church. This is targeted at men who claim to act like men but don't respect all women no matter what they happen to be wearing.
To those unsavory ones who poison the faith and "movement" for the rest of us, shame on you. Feminism is not the biggest problem to arise since the plague. You were likely raised in WASP America and born after or not too long before the Council. You see the evils in the world and react against them. Most react appropriately and call a spade a spade. Others call the spade a weapon of mass destruction and act accordingly.
Radical feminism ought to be fought, but feminism itself is not a bad thing. We should remember that in Protestant nations women were held back, In Catholic ones, they were much more free. The United States is a protestant nation and women were more oppressed than they were in Catholic nations (thanks to Puritanism).
You fight it by saying women should not go to universities. You say that women shouldn't wear pants no matter what. If that's your opinion and how you live your life, fine. Never ever tell others who do wear pants or go to universities to stop. That isn't your right. It is not sinful. There is a distinct difference between women pants and men pants. I challenge you to buy a pair of feminine pants, go into a dressing room, and try them on. If there's no such thing as feminine pants, you shouldn't object. If you won't for thesake of modesty, buy them and try it on at home. No one is going to see you.
The moment you start harrassing women who do things you don't approve of and the Church allows, you became the very thing you hate. There's not much of a difference between radical feminists and radical tradidionalists.
Like I said, if you want to wear dresses exclusively, be my guest...just don't force others to wear them.
Beyond this, I'm sickened with the extremists' attitude towards women. As women, they deserve respect even if they refuse to act like it. Let's say you treat a masculine female horribly. Are you going to treat an effeminate man like you would a female? Of course not! The logic just doesn't work out.
You view the world and reject the little good and cling to what you think is good. The only reactionaries like yourself are anti-Catholic Fundamentalist Protestants. Why read books written by protestants and not Novus Ordo Priests? In your opinion, aren't they pretty much on the same level? If you can weed out the bad from the good, why can't you with modern Catholic books?
We don't have many good Catholic examples in this country, so we subconsciously look up to those who also hate modern society. As a result, a subset of traditionalists who think it's their right to force their views of morality where the Church allows us to choose on fellow Catholics.
Who knows how many tradition loving Novus Ordo Mass goers are turned off by the whole "feminist" issue?
While I think homeschooling is best for a child, I do realize that some Catholic women can't do it and it's their right to raise their children however they want as long as it isn't against any Church teachings or dangerous to their faith.
I never hear any women who wear pants, send their kids to school, or anything else you reactionary radicals happen to believe in acct the same way towards you. I never once read a traditional Catholic woman say to another "Yeah, you should really get rid of the dress and wear pants. You're in an occasion of sin-pride" or "You really should send your kids off to school they're going to be dumb!"
No, I never did read it. Wearing dresses exclusively is not going to cause most people to be proud. Wearing pants aren't going to turn them into raging radical feminists. Most homeschoolers are smart, and so are most trad kids who went to school. It has more to do on how they're raised.
So please, before you start declaring things ex-cathedra from your armchair, remember that the Church never officially taught that women pants are sinful. You wouldn't like it if someone incaded your house and told you what to do. Not all pantswearers are raging feminists, especially traditional women.
As a result of these obervations, I am officially announcing that I am going to attend "Indult" and NO Masses exclusively since the types I'm talking about tend to dislike those two groups and avoids them.
To anyone that misinterpreted this-This is not targeted to everyone that wears dresses exclusively. This is targeted at people who feel the need to be a pope from their computer chair and try to speak infallibly on matters not defined by the Church. This is targeted at men who claim to act like men but don't respect all women no matter what they happen to be wearing.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Hannity's Americanism is showing
He just said it was wrong for the clergy to refuse people communion for political positions. I knew Romney's speech would do this. The Media is truly the devil's tool. Without them having to report on something they artificially made juicy, we wouldn't have to hear this crap.
Pray for this misguided man.
Pray for this misguided man.
Feast Day of St. Nicholas
Remeber, santa may have given out gifts, he also punched Arius out.
You better watch out! You better be nice, or else!
You better watch out! You better be nice, or else!
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Computer Sins
I've been a member of a trad Cat message board (when it was more Hobbitty and friendly) and lurked around others. Occasionally a thread about whether downloading music is a sin or not will come around.
Overlooked is whether hotlinking is a sin or not. Obviously it is if downloding music is a sin. Why? It steals bandwidth and money from the host website. Always right click and click on properties.
Overlooked is whether hotlinking is a sin or not. Obviously it is if downloding music is a sin. Why? It steals bandwidth and money from the host website. Always right click and click on properties.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Rosary and Christmas Tree
My mom found my rosary beads in the couch today. Apparently, my grandma found them and was going to give them back but dropped it or something. Pretty glad I finally have a good set. I think I got them for my first communion.
The decorations are almost all up on the tree. I totally forgot about the awesome ornament I got from my parish about 8 years ago.
The decorations are almost all up on the tree. I totally forgot about the awesome ornament I got from my parish about 8 years ago.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Medievals believed the Earth was flat
No, they didn't. Anti-Catholic Atheists eat this myth up like the protestants do. Hypocrites...if the complete truth and freedom from bias really matters, why wouldn't they question that the myth was written by an anti-Catholic to make us look bad?
Explain this:
The Church of San Vitale
Explain this:
The Church of San Vitale
Sunday, November 25, 2007
His Most Eminent Beatitude Cardinal Patriarch Mar Emmanuel III Delly
The media is also mostly ignoring what the Pope said about Iraq.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL2461181420071124
If more people knew what the H.H. had to say about the war, more opinions would change. Not many, but we can use even more.
May the media report more on this courageous Cardinal and all the Chaldeans.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL2461181420071124
If more people knew what the H.H. had to say about the war, more opinions would change. Not many, but we can use even more.
May the media report more on this courageous Cardinal and all the Chaldeans.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Just a heads up
Fox reported on the two new American Cardinals. It's one thing to be proud that a fellow countryman is becoming a Cardinal, it's another to be nationalistic about it. Maybe they hope they'll throw their red hats aside and kiss the altar of the state! The arrogance in these hosts' voices is frightening.
The more Americans in the Vatican, the better for America...right?
And no mention of the Chaldean...oh yeah, I forgot...there's a genocide that is America's fault. Whoops!
If there weren't any Americans, would Fox mention them so much? I highly doubt it.
The more Americans in the Vatican, the better for America...right?
And no mention of the Chaldean...oh yeah, I forgot...there's a genocide that is America's fault. Whoops!
If there weren't any Americans, would Fox mention them so much? I highly doubt it.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
What I learned this thanksgiving
I. Puritans weren't fundamentalists.
II. Alexander Hamilton was the first real conservative and Jefferson was the first liberal
III. Being an American is better than being a Catholic.
Now to explain-
I. On Fox, they were reporting on the Seattle schools reminding us that Indians (feather, not dot) mourn. More than when they find a sole piece of litter on the side of a highway. They also said that the site or pamphlet or whatever said that the pilgrims were fundies. Reported in a "yeah, right" tone. Anyone who says the puritans weren't fundies must be really messed up.
II. Well, I heard this yesterday and they were talking in terms of modern politics. Theres nothing liberal about paleoconservatism and paleolibertarianism!
III. This came from a report on an American becoming a Cardinal. Sorry, but that's not nearly as important as the Chaldean. I'm still betting that the Church in the US is going to split away. Patriotism is more important than the faith. Heck, American Catholics treat US soldiers as martyrs. The mixing of nationalism and religion is a dangerous thing.
II. Alexander Hamilton was the first real conservative and Jefferson was the first liberal
III. Being an American is better than being a Catholic.
Now to explain-
I. On Fox, they were reporting on the Seattle schools reminding us that Indians (feather, not dot) mourn. More than when they find a sole piece of litter on the side of a highway. They also said that the site or pamphlet or whatever said that the pilgrims were fundies. Reported in a "yeah, right" tone. Anyone who says the puritans weren't fundies must be really messed up.
II. Well, I heard this yesterday and they were talking in terms of modern politics. Theres nothing liberal about paleoconservatism and paleolibertarianism!
III. This came from a report on an American becoming a Cardinal. Sorry, but that's not nearly as important as the Chaldean. I'm still betting that the Church in the US is going to split away. Patriotism is more important than the faith. Heck, American Catholics treat US soldiers as martyrs. The mixing of nationalism and religion is a dangerous thing.
Friday, November 16, 2007
What's up with the Bishops?
Suddenly it's possible to vote for a pro-abortion candidate for grave reasons? Grave reasons like, say...Hillary vs. Rudy? The USCCB have sold out the faith yet again.
Viva il Papa!
I done did added emphasis
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/11/16/do1605.xml
By Damian Thompson
Pope gets radical and woos the Anglicans
Damian Thompson
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT
16/11/2007
Two and a half years after the name "Josephum" came booming down from the balcony of St Peter's, making liberal Catholics weep with rage, Pope Benedict XVI is revealing his programme of reform. And it is breathtakingly ambitious.
The 80-year-old Pontiff is planning a purification of the Roman liturgy in which decades of trendy innovations will be swept away. This recovery of the sacred is intended to draw Catholics closer to the Orthodox and ultimately to heal the 1,000 year Great Schism. But it is also designed to attract vast numbers of conservative Anglicans, who will be offered the protection of the Holy Father if they covert en masse.
The liberal cardinals don't like the sound of it at all.
Ever since the shock of Benedict's election, they have been waiting for him to show his hand. Now that he has, the resistance has begun in earnest - and the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, is in the thick of it.
"Pope Benedict is isolated," I was told when I visited Rome last week. "So many people, even in the Vatican, oppose him, and he feels the strain immensely." Yet he is ploughing ahead. He reminds me of another conservative revolutionary, Margaret Thatcher, who waited a couple of years before taking on the Cabinet "wets" sabotaging her reforms.
Benedict's pontificate moved into a new phase on July 7, with the publication of his apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum.
With a stroke of his pen, the Pope restored the traditional Latin Mass - in effect banned for 40 years - to parity with the modern liturgy. Shortly afterwards, he replaced Archbishop Piero Marini, the papal Master of Ceremonies who turned many of John Paul II's Masses into politically correct carnivals.
Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor was most displeased. Last week, he hit back with a "commentary" on Summorum Pontificum.
According to Murphy-O'Connor, the ruling leaves the power of local bishops untouched. In fact, it removes the bishops' power to block the ancient liturgy. In other words, the cardinal - who tried to stop Benedict issuing the ruling - is misrepresenting its contents.
Alas, he is not alone: dozens of bishops in Britain, Europe and America have tried the same trick.
Murphy-O'Connor's "commentary" was modelled on equally dire "guidelines" written by Bishop Arthur Roche of Leeds with the apparent purpose of discouraging the faithful from exercising their new rights.
A few years ago the ploy might have worked. But news travels fast in the traditionalist blogosphere, and these tactics have been brought to the attention of papal advisers.
This month, Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, a senior Vatican official close to Benedict, declared that "bishops and even cardinals" who misrepresented Summorum Pontificum were "in rebellion against the Pope".
Ranjith is tipped to become the next Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, in charge of regulating worldwide liturgy. That makes sense: if Benedict is moving into a higher gear, then he needs street fighters in high office.
He may also have to reform an entire department, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, which spends most of its time promoting the sort of ecumenical waffle that Benedict abhors.
This is a sensitive moment. Last month, the bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion, a network of 400,000 breakaway Anglo-Catholics based mainly in America and the Commonwealth, wrote to Rome asking for "full, corporate, sacramental union".
Their letter was drafted with the help of the Vatican. Benedict is overseeing the negotiations. Unlike John Paul II, he admires the Anglo-Catholic tradition. He is thinking of making special pastoral arrangements for Anglican converts walking away from the car wreck of the Anglican Communion.
This would mean that they could worship together, free from bullying by local bishops who dislike the newcomers' conservatism and would rather "dialogue" with Anglicans than receive them into the Church.
The liberation of the Latin liturgy, the rapprochement with Eastern Orthodoxy, the absorption of former Anglicans - all these ambitions reflect Benedict's conviction that the Catholic Church must rediscover the liturgical treasure of Christian history to perform its most important task: worshipping God.
This conviction is shared by growing numbers of young Catholics, but not by the church politicians who have dominated the hierarchies of Europe for too long.
By failing to welcome the latest papal initiatives - or even to display any interest in them, beyond the narrow question of how their power is affected - the bishops of England and Wales have confirmed Benedict's low opinion of them.
Now he should replace them. If the Catholic reformation is to start anywhere, it might as well be here.
Yep, let's give the pope a break. I just figured out why the pope didn't go fully traditional. Imagine the schism! Yeah, it could be argued that they already are, but imagine the sorrow of knowing that it could have been possible to keep a lot more people in the Church!
Plus, one objection is that the changes of Vatican II happened too fast. Reverting will take a while, and it'll seem more organic.
Let's stop being super radicals demanding immediate change...it'll come. Just give it time. May God give Benedict XVI a long and healthy life (here's to 20 more years!)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/11/16/do1605.xml
By Damian Thompson
Pope gets radical and woos the Anglicans
Damian Thompson
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT
16/11/2007
Two and a half years after the name "Josephum" came booming down from the balcony of St Peter's, making liberal Catholics weep with rage, Pope Benedict XVI is revealing his programme of reform. And it is breathtakingly ambitious.
The 80-year-old Pontiff is planning a purification of the Roman liturgy in which decades of trendy innovations will be swept away. This recovery of the sacred is intended to draw Catholics closer to the Orthodox and ultimately to heal the 1,000 year Great Schism. But it is also designed to attract vast numbers of conservative Anglicans, who will be offered the protection of the Holy Father if they covert en masse.
The liberal cardinals don't like the sound of it at all.
Ever since the shock of Benedict's election, they have been waiting for him to show his hand. Now that he has, the resistance has begun in earnest - and the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, is in the thick of it.
"Pope Benedict is isolated," I was told when I visited Rome last week. "So many people, even in the Vatican, oppose him, and he feels the strain immensely." Yet he is ploughing ahead. He reminds me of another conservative revolutionary, Margaret Thatcher, who waited a couple of years before taking on the Cabinet "wets" sabotaging her reforms.
Benedict's pontificate moved into a new phase on July 7, with the publication of his apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum.
With a stroke of his pen, the Pope restored the traditional Latin Mass - in effect banned for 40 years - to parity with the modern liturgy. Shortly afterwards, he replaced Archbishop Piero Marini, the papal Master of Ceremonies who turned many of John Paul II's Masses into politically correct carnivals.
Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor was most displeased. Last week, he hit back with a "commentary" on Summorum Pontificum.
According to Murphy-O'Connor, the ruling leaves the power of local bishops untouched. In fact, it removes the bishops' power to block the ancient liturgy. In other words, the cardinal - who tried to stop Benedict issuing the ruling - is misrepresenting its contents.
Alas, he is not alone: dozens of bishops in Britain, Europe and America have tried the same trick.
Murphy-O'Connor's "commentary" was modelled on equally dire "guidelines" written by Bishop Arthur Roche of Leeds with the apparent purpose of discouraging the faithful from exercising their new rights.
A few years ago the ploy might have worked. But news travels fast in the traditionalist blogosphere, and these tactics have been brought to the attention of papal advisers.
This month, Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, a senior Vatican official close to Benedict, declared that "bishops and even cardinals" who misrepresented Summorum Pontificum were "in rebellion against the Pope".
Ranjith is tipped to become the next Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, in charge of regulating worldwide liturgy. That makes sense: if Benedict is moving into a higher gear, then he needs street fighters in high office.
He may also have to reform an entire department, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, which spends most of its time promoting the sort of ecumenical waffle that Benedict abhors.
This is a sensitive moment. Last month, the bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion, a network of 400,000 breakaway Anglo-Catholics based mainly in America and the Commonwealth, wrote to Rome asking for "full, corporate, sacramental union".
Their letter was drafted with the help of the Vatican. Benedict is overseeing the negotiations. Unlike John Paul II, he admires the Anglo-Catholic tradition. He is thinking of making special pastoral arrangements for Anglican converts walking away from the car wreck of the Anglican Communion.
This would mean that they could worship together, free from bullying by local bishops who dislike the newcomers' conservatism and would rather "dialogue" with Anglicans than receive them into the Church.
The liberation of the Latin liturgy, the rapprochement with Eastern Orthodoxy, the absorption of former Anglicans - all these ambitions reflect Benedict's conviction that the Catholic Church must rediscover the liturgical treasure of Christian history to perform its most important task: worshipping God.
This conviction is shared by growing numbers of young Catholics, but not by the church politicians who have dominated the hierarchies of Europe for too long.
By failing to welcome the latest papal initiatives - or even to display any interest in them, beyond the narrow question of how their power is affected - the bishops of England and Wales have confirmed Benedict's low opinion of them.
Now he should replace them. If the Catholic reformation is to start anywhere, it might as well be here.
Yep, let's give the pope a break. I just figured out why the pope didn't go fully traditional. Imagine the schism! Yeah, it could be argued that they already are, but imagine the sorrow of knowing that it could have been possible to keep a lot more people in the Church!
Plus, one objection is that the changes of Vatican II happened too fast. Reverting will take a while, and it'll seem more organic.
Let's stop being super radicals demanding immediate change...it'll come. Just give it time. May God give Benedict XVI a long and healthy life (here's to 20 more years!)
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
God debate
Hannity said he's going to have a debate about the existence of God tonight...
Expect plenty of arguments from authority, wishful thinking, ad hominems, strawman arguments, and other logical fallacies. Some from one side, some from the other, and some from both. Also expect some atheists to become more militant, some Christians to use whatever new argument comes up ad nauseam, and those of us who argue by basing our arguments on the great Saints and theologians' opinion and not some sola scriptura private interpretation heretic yahoo to be very embarrassed.
Expect plenty of arguments from authority, wishful thinking, ad hominems, strawman arguments, and other logical fallacies. Some from one side, some from the other, and some from both. Also expect some atheists to become more militant, some Christians to use whatever new argument comes up ad nauseam, and those of us who argue by basing our arguments on the great Saints and theologians' opinion and not some sola scriptura private interpretation heretic yahoo to be very embarrassed.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Priests arrested
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18584.htm
To anyone who says waterboarding isn't torture-get waterboarded yourself and report your conclusions to me.
People can get their children taken away for psychological abuse, but it's cool for the government to do it to extract information. Makes sense to me!
There are better ways to get information. During World War II, soldiers would play cards with prisoners and they got information pretty well. "But what about the extremism!" Well, Americans aren't as attached to their land as Europeans are (or were), so betraying their homeland would be almost like betraying their God.
Maybe we could even win a few of the bad guys over. Get out of everyone's business and stop supporting Israel so much. And maybe even stop abusing them...there's no way we can make them change their mind by having their minds perceive death.
Not everyone worships Aries...
On a lighter note, because laughter is a good sign that things aren't so bad in the world, a joke that's sorta related:
To anyone who says waterboarding isn't torture-get waterboarded yourself and report your conclusions to me.
People can get their children taken away for psychological abuse, but it's cool for the government to do it to extract information. Makes sense to me!
There are better ways to get information. During World War II, soldiers would play cards with prisoners and they got information pretty well. "But what about the extremism!" Well, Americans aren't as attached to their land as Europeans are (or were), so betraying their homeland would be almost like betraying their God.
Maybe we could even win a few of the bad guys over. Get out of everyone's business and stop supporting Israel so much. And maybe even stop abusing them...there's no way we can make them change their mind by having their minds perceive death.
Not everyone worships Aries...
On a lighter note, because laughter is a good sign that things aren't so bad in the world, a joke that's sorta related:
A man walked up to a Franciscan and Jesuit and asked, "How many novenas must you say to get a Mercedes Benz?"
The Franciscan asked, "What's a Mercedes Benz?"
The Jesuit asked, "What's a novena?"
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
O'Reilly the Heretic, part II
He's talking about the cross dressers receiving Our Lord's Body again, and yet he still manages to dig himself further in a hole. He mentioned secular progressives want "unfettered abortion". Is he implying that it's alright in some cases?
He still never apologized for his implied support of birth control.
O'Reilly did make a pretty good point though. He said that the Church didn't condemn them. What O'Reilly doesn't know is the majority of the USCCB is almost schismatic. Emphasis on almost. There's a few good men, and quite a number of them are well intentioned and have been tricked by the bad ones. This is why we have to pray for them.
Will the Pope say anything about it? It wouldn't surprise me if he didn't. He knows how it is over there, he knows that it's not Catholicism anymore.
He still never apologized for his implied support of birth control.
O'Reilly did make a pretty good point though. He said that the Church didn't condemn them. What O'Reilly doesn't know is the majority of the USCCB is almost schismatic. Emphasis on almost. There's a few good men, and quite a number of them are well intentioned and have been tricked by the bad ones. This is why we have to pray for them.
Will the Pope say anything about it? It wouldn't surprise me if he didn't. He knows how it is over there, he knows that it's not Catholicism anymore.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Rudy has the Catholic vote?
Eighty years ago, Rudy would have been flogged with bats and chains. Now he's leading in the Catholic votes. So long Culture of Life!
Oh well, let's fight for the Reign of Christ the King and against these virtual apostates. Of course, pro-lifers want the federal government to outlaw abortion. Doesn't this imply that abortion isn't murder though? Murder laws are always left to the states. Just petition your local government, you'll have more success in the local levels. Petition the federal government to follow the Just War Theory strictly. That's something they actually have the authority to do!
Pray for the end of abortion, and pray that it will be left to the states where we can actually get something done!
Oh well, let's fight for the Reign of Christ the King and against these virtual apostates. Of course, pro-lifers want the federal government to outlaw abortion. Doesn't this imply that abortion isn't murder though? Murder laws are always left to the states. Just petition your local government, you'll have more success in the local levels. Petition the federal government to follow the Just War Theory strictly. That's something they actually have the authority to do!
Pray for the end of abortion, and pray that it will be left to the states where we can actually get something done!
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Joseph e Chico
I just saw this link on the Fisheaters Message Board.
Chico the cat tells pope's life story By ALESSANDRA RIZZO, Associated Press Writer Thu Oct 4, 1:32 PM ET
ROME - The story of Pope Benedict XVI's life — from his birth in Germany to his election as pontiff — is told through the eyes of a tabby cat called Chico in a new children's book.
In "Joseph and Chico: A Cat Recounts the Life of Pope Benedict XVI," the orange tabby cat tells readers the pope is "my dearest friend, a wonderful man with whom I've spent many happy moments."
He recounts Benedict's childhood and his passion for reading and playing the piano. The books depicts the future pope's early steps in the Catholic Church, from when he entered a seminary in 1939 to his ordination as a priest in 1951.
The book will hit Italian bookstores on Monday.
The feline narrator is inspired by a real orange tabby cat in Pentling — the German town where the pope, then Joseph Ratzinger, lived for a period before moving to Rome in 1981 — that belonged to the family next door.
"I can assure you that what you will find in this book ... is all true and interesting," Benedict's secretary, Monsignor Georg Gaenswein, says in the preface of the book.
The 44-page book also touches on the Nazi era, when a teenaged Ratzinger enrolled in the Hitler Youth. "In that period, Joseph was forced to do something that absolutely went against his will: enroll in the Army and leave for war," it says.
The pope eventually deserted without seeing combat and was taken prisoner by U.S. forces before being released several weeks later.
The biography ends with Pope John Paul II's funeral and Benedict's election to the pontificate on in April 2005. "Now Joseph Ratzinger is not only my friend, but the great friend and leader of all Catholics," Chico says.
Benedict is known to like cats. Before he became pope, he looked after stray cats in his old neighborhood near the Vatican.
The book, written in Italian by Jeanne Perego and illustrated by Donata Dal Molin Casagrande, will go on sale Monday, publishing house Edizioni Messaggero Padova said. The publisher will negotiate international rights at the Frankfurt Book Fair next week.
Chico the cat tells pope's life story By ALESSANDRA RIZZO, Associated Press Writer Thu Oct 4, 1:32 PM ET
ROME - The story of Pope Benedict XVI's life — from his birth in Germany to his election as pontiff — is told through the eyes of a tabby cat called Chico in a new children's book.
In "Joseph and Chico: A Cat Recounts the Life of Pope Benedict XVI," the orange tabby cat tells readers the pope is "my dearest friend, a wonderful man with whom I've spent many happy moments."
He recounts Benedict's childhood and his passion for reading and playing the piano. The books depicts the future pope's early steps in the Catholic Church, from when he entered a seminary in 1939 to his ordination as a priest in 1951.
The book will hit Italian bookstores on Monday.
The feline narrator is inspired by a real orange tabby cat in Pentling — the German town where the pope, then Joseph Ratzinger, lived for a period before moving to Rome in 1981 — that belonged to the family next door.
"I can assure you that what you will find in this book ... is all true and interesting," Benedict's secretary, Monsignor Georg Gaenswein, says in the preface of the book.
The 44-page book also touches on the Nazi era, when a teenaged Ratzinger enrolled in the Hitler Youth. "In that period, Joseph was forced to do something that absolutely went against his will: enroll in the Army and leave for war," it says.
The pope eventually deserted without seeing combat and was taken prisoner by U.S. forces before being released several weeks later.
The biography ends with Pope John Paul II's funeral and Benedict's election to the pontificate on in April 2005. "Now Joseph Ratzinger is not only my friend, but the great friend and leader of all Catholics," Chico says.
Benedict is known to like cats. Before he became pope, he looked after stray cats in his old neighborhood near the Vatican.
The book, written in Italian by Jeanne Perego and illustrated by Donata Dal Molin Casagrande, will go on sale Monday, publishing house Edizioni Messaggero Padova said. The publisher will negotiate international rights at the Frankfurt Book Fair next week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)