FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: What Pope Benedict really said about Eucharistic adoration
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
(09-23-2011, 12:18 AM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]Like this banal example is rejected.  Strawman arguments should always be rejected. Another incongruity is the snobbish assumption that "modern man" and the "thinking man" are one and the same.   
I agree.  Good analysis overall.  I am very uncomfortable Ratzinger's  intellectualized dismissal of traditional piety in the name of "modern man" (whoever that is).
Even before I understood it, before I had come back to the faith, I KNEW that there was something very, very real - unavoidably real - about Christ's presence in the Eucharist.  Walking into a Catholic church is simply not like walking into any other religious building.  That the future Pope could not speak about the Real Presence in a concrete way is mystifying to me - it's almost as if he's desacramentalizing the Blessed Sacrament.  Very odd.  But people change.  It would be interesting to see what he's written recently on the subject.
(09-23-2011, 12:42 AM)Landelinus Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-23-2011, 12:18 AM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]Like this banal example is rejected.  Strawman arguments should always be rejected. Another incongruity is the snobbish assumption that "modern man" and the "thinking man" are one and the same.   
I agree.  Good analysis overall.  I am very uncomfortable Ratzinger's  intellectualized dismissal of traditional piety in the name of "modern man" (whoever that is).
Even before I understood it, before I had come back to the faith, I KNEW that there was something very, very real - unavoidably real - about Christ's presence in the Eucharist.  Walking into a Catholic church is simply not like walking into any other religious building.  That the future Pope could not speak about the Real Presence in a concrete way is mystifying to me - it's almost as if he's desacramentalizing the Blessed Sacrament.  Very odd.  But people change.  It would be interesting to see what he's written recently on the subject.

Where did that happen? As the OP made clear, Pope Benedict did not reject Eucharistic adoration. He was merely criticizing simplistic views of the Eucharist that he thought likely to drive modern men away from the Church.

At any rate, as you said, people change. Pope Benedict has himself acknowledged that his views have changed quite a bit since the time of the Council. I find it telling that almost all of the quotations used to slander the Pope are taken from his earlier writings. Of course, even then the quotations are usually taken out of context, misread, or even mistranslated as was the case here.
(09-23-2011, 12:53 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]Where did that happen? As the OP made clear, Pope Benedict did not reject Eucharistic adoration. He was merely criticizing simplistic views of the Eucharist that he thought likely to drive modern men away from the Church.

He was calling a strawman argument a "crisis" that needs "purification" in the Church.  By misrepresenting the real devotion, he seeks to replace it with a different formulation not in continuity with the reality of adoration.  His mobilism and pyrrhonism as Roman Amerio describes it comes out very clearly in the passage. 

This is the same tactic used by all of the modernists in the Church at the time of the Council, misrepresent an opposing position in order to present a crisis, chastise the status quo as if it is identical to the strawman created and claim to be getting back to the basics while in reality, imposing a novel idea on people that ultimately undermines the practice in itself. 

People stand before the judgement seat by themselves, adoration by oneself or in a crowd is just as pleasing to God.  Bishop Sheen seemed to do well with his holy hour each day.  He wasn't particularly concerned with the concerns of the crisis then-Fr. Ratzinger imagined. 
(09-23-2011, 12:40 AM)moneil Wrote: [ -> ]What I find interesting to ponder, while we are discusing the attitudes of diocesan Catholics versus sedevacantist and other non-diocesan Catholics regarding Eucharistic Adoration, is WHICH group has the greater per capita number (not the greater number, as obviousily that would be the diocesan churches, but on a per capita basis of adherents) of perpetual adoration chapels or weekly Eucharistic adoration times?

http://www.therealpresence.org

I would surmise that even without expositon a far greater percentage of diocesan churches have their doors unlocked (even at night) for those who wish to visit Our Lord in the tabernacle and spend some time in prayer there.  My parish church is never locked and the area around the tabernacle is kept lighted.  I regularly see others there when I go.

Rather than argue over obtuse theological language that has been translated from a language few here comprehend I find it more informative to observe what the faithful are doing.

http://www.therealpresence.org

Good point.

[Image: jaccks264.jpg]
Thank you Archdiocesan (OP)  for the translation; it certainly puts a different light on things.   Of course I'm assuming that your translation is really more accurate, but all the signs point to that being the case.

It seems that  someone must have been dishonest in the other translation, but I'm not willing to blame all sedevacantists,  or all believers that a Pope may have taught heresy .  I've known some (in fisheaters and elsewhere)  who have been as thorough and scholarly and intent on truth as anyone here. 

I can't digest all the arguments and translations and assertions on both sides of the debate going on here on fisheaters.and in the Church.  I do know that when I read Ratzinger I find him difficult, obscure, easy to read out of context and (to my mind) ambiguous.  Not a good combination for effectively teaching truth.

I do have the same problem as Gerard with these parts of the translation:

"Ratzinger" Wrote:Eucharistic adoration or quiet visiting in church can, reasonably, not simply be thought of as conversation with the God who is thought present in a locally-circumscriptive manner.

"Gerard" Wrote:
"Ratzinger" Wrote:Statements such as "God dwells here" and conversation with the locally-thought God based on such [thinking] express a mistake [misjudgment] of the christological event as well as the idea of God,

Same incongruous assertion that is contained in the disputed translation.  The statement that "God dwells here" is an implication of a mistake in understanding the Eucharist and God's presence. It somehow automatically implies that the person can't distinguish between God's omnipresence and His sacramental presence.

It certainly sounds like Cardinal Ratzinger is saying that the statement "God dwells here" is really a mistake in judgment.  But perhaps he is being ambiguous so  that 'such [thinking]' doesn't mean 'thinking that God dwells here' but rather 'thinking that God is present in a locally-circumscriptive manner'.  In any case the wording (in the translation) seems at best ambiguous and misleading.
Where did that happen? As the OP made clear, Pope Benedict did not reject Eucharistic adoration. He was merely criticizing simplistic views of the Eucharist that he thought likely to drive modern men away from the Church.

Who had those views?  The simple pew peasant might believe that Jesus resides in the tabernacle, He does, that is why you genuflect.  But no Catholic I've ever heard of thought Jesus was limited to the extremities of the visible unleavened bread.

If nobody has those simplistic views then why criticize them?

At any rate, as you said, people change. Pope Benedict has himself acknowledged that his views have changed quite a bit since the time of the Council. I find it telling that almost all of the quotations used to slander the Pope are taken from his earlier writings,


Would you consider June 2000 his earlier writings?
(09-22-2011, 11:29 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe my question should be: 

Archdiocesan,  did you lift that image from a sede website and then post it or have someone post it to imageshack so you wouldn't be embarassed at using the resources of a sede website to trash all sedevacantists for their dishonesty? 

Do I have to write to Mario and ask him if he did the original scans?

Yes I noticed that too.  That was a lot of trouble to go to when he could have just cut and paste the URL.

Kind of shows the modernist mindset.  The truth does not support their case.  Their philosophy stinks like a toilet after Jabba the Hut has been crapping in there.  So they mask it with air-freshener.

But I suspect the excuse he will use was that he was keeping it for future reference in case Novus Ordo Watch went off line.

If excuses were virtues, they'd be in great shape.
(09-23-2011, 01:45 AM)Dominus est Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-23-2011, 12:40 AM)moneil Wrote: [ -> ]What I find interesting to ponder, while we are discusing the attitudes of diocesan Catholics versus sedevacantist and other non-diocesan Catholics regarding Eucharistic Adoration, is WHICH group has the greater per capita number (not the greater number, as obviousily that would be the diocesan churches, but on a per capita basis of adherents) of perpetual adoration chapels or weekly Eucharistic adoration times?

http://www.therealpresence.org

I would surmise that even without expositon a far greater percentage of diocesan churches have their doors unlocked (even at night) for those who wish to visit Our Lord in the tabernacle and spend some time in prayer there.  My parish church is never locked and the area around the tabernacle is kept lighted.  I regularly see others there when I go.

Rather than argue over obtuse theological language that has been translated from a language few here comprehend I find it more informative to observe what the faithful are doing.

http://www.therealpresence.org

Good point.

[Image: jaccks264.jpg]

Stupid point.

For one thing, Parish priests in diocesan churches often live on the same site as the Church and can therefore provide security.  Non-diocesan rarely live next to the Church of Chapel.

For another thing, here in the UK, I've NEVER come across a diocesan church that is not locked in the evening.  Maybe in America things are different, but in the parts of the world I inhabit Churches are generally locked in the evening.

A better litmus is to sit in each church on a Sunday and see how many people genuflect before the tabernacle when they arrive and before they leave.

Or look at how they receive communion and their demeanour while they are doing it.

Trads then win hands down.

Besides, per capita, I would BET you $1000 that Trads and SVs have had more Benediction and Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament over the last 40 years than diocesan Catholics.  And their attendance rate per capita would be WAY WAY WAY higher.
The scan is indeed from NOW. I'm willing to take for granted that Derksen isn't quite sad enough to forge a scan of the original, and it's on ImageShack because hotlinking tends to annoy website hosts. The fact that Derksen's site provides the German doesn't detract from the fact that the dishonest translation is used on such websites as Holywar, The-Pope, TheCatholicFaith, CathInfo, CMRI, OpusDeiAlert, DailyCatholic, TraditionInAction, etc. etc. as well as featuring in Rama P. Coomaraswamy's book The Destruction of the Christian Tradition.

Still, if you think it's somehow damning that I've used one sedevacantist website's scans to demonstrate the dishonesty of the quotation used by other sedevacantist websites, as well as at least one poster here, then  :laughing: indeed!
You still refuse to engage with the issue.

B16 gives Holy Communion to known Protestants.  There is a picture of him doing this at JP2's funeral.

So can he have completely orthodox understanding of the Eucharist?  If he does in fact it even makes the situation worse, because he cannot even claim to be a badly instructed or misguided Catholic.  (A somewhat ridiculous notion that a Pope can claim to be this anyway frankly)

Is it a misunderstanding, a mistranslation, or the Hegelian/Orwellian double-think and double-speak he is well known for?

If the Pope does not cling to any heresy why does he allow so many other Bishops and Priests to do so?  Orthodox Catholics should not stand by while the Church autodestructs.  Is the man a weakling?  Is that your defence?

Why does he pray with false religions, Jews and Muslims?

Why is he communing with a Luteran Bishopess this week?

Too many statements.  Too much evidence.  It is not all mistranslated.

People here defended him on the Condom lesser of two evils statement too, saying he was misunderstood or it was mistranslated.  It was a wreckless thing to say at best.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9