FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: The real St. Francis of Assisi
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 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
(01-31-2012, 12:08 PM)Warrenton Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-30-2012, 05:52 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: [ -> ]Of course, I realize St. Francis is famous for being the “peaceful man by the bird bath.” That's because he wrote enough canticles to the creatures to merit that image, though I admit it's not a complete picture. What we need is a COMPLETE picture, not a so-called masculine one vs. a feminine one.

The problem with our world today is that it is very hard to conjure a correct balancing of the masculine and feminine within the persona.  The medieval period was rather more effective at this, and the ideal is summed up in the motto of the Calverts "fatta macchio, parole femine," which means "manly deed, womanly words."  That was the idea of courtesy.  In a world when when all men were rugged, what set a man apart was his ability to exercise restraint, to reflect.  If one thinks of the Grimm's Tales, the heroes (men and women both) do not rely on their physical power, or their beauty - they are heroic because they think.  Having lost this balance, St. Francis today appears as a conflicting personality, while in truth, he was in extraordinary balance - a perfect harmonization of the medieval values which were quintessentially Catholic.  He was courtly, he was tough, he was devout, and he voluntarilly became poor in imitation of Christ.  He led by example, which is the last thing leaders today do.  The last man to die in any modern war is the nation's leader.

Vorhis's observations are correct in themselves, and perhaps his attempt to restore masculinity is better than the suppression of its positive aspects in modern society.  For the long haul, though, we need to reject both the crying politician and the macho gangsta.  We need chivalry.  

I really like your thoughts. Thanks.
This says a whole lot;

...the ideal is summed up in the motto of the Calverts "fatta macchio, parole femine,"

I like it.

tim
(01-31-2012, 03:01 PM)Iolanthe Wrote: [ -> ]There is nothing wrong with my tone. I'm annoyed because I get tired of watching people like Voris making the Church look like something it's not. If you're too sensitive to see a woman doing that without your head spinning out of control, you are the problem. Not me.

You're overreacting.  Cool off already.  I told you I agreed with part of what you wrote.  All I'm saying is DON'T be outraged if people read your post and throw the feminist flag due to the fact that your sarcastic tone of voice makes it sound a lot like "woman are just as good if not better than men."

Quote:PS. You're working awfully hard to ignore my original points about St. Francis and how trads overemphasize the masculine at the expense of everything else. Care to address those points? If you nitpick one tiny thing in a discussion, you run the risk of looking intellectually dishonest and undeserving of being taken seriously.

No I'm not....I actually agree with most of what you said in your original post.  I think you're absolutely right when you explain St. Francis's temperament, and you're spot on when you mentioned trads who are armchair theologians.  I actually laughed out loud when I read it. 

I only chimed in because you were outraged that Ineffible1 disagreed with you on the crucifixion (NOT St. Francis) and I thought I'd add my two cents in.  Incidentally, did you read the part where I said I agreed with both of you and explained why?

Here's some free advice.  I don't know you, and you don't know me, so don't assume that I'm "just like everyone else".  Incidentally, that also is not a free pass to you saying whatever you want.  In a debate people disagree with eachother.  Get over it.  Sarcasm and hostility automatically lead to people not listening or taking you seriously. 
(01-31-2012, 12:56 PM)Tim Wrote: [ -> ]A little more to chew on, in another thread they are asking about the curse psalms, and trying to reconcile them vis a vis passive non-violent ideal.
The psalms are torturiously translated , the Latin is Direct and manly, yet they've been softened in translation. This I thnk is what you are talking about. The Bute, the English translation,  sounds as if Tiny Tim translated it. Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Trinity, and God Almighty including Him ordered Saul to kill all of the Philistines, man, woman, child, animals. We are shocked by this because we are human. Saul, too was. He lost favor with God because he did not do it.. David his annointed ascended the throne. This is manly and hard for women, and some men to stand. God's ways are not human ways. That goes for men and women. 

According to Fr. Pacwa when Francis landed in the Holy Land he went to the Crusaders laying siege first. He told them to wait as more Crusaders were on the way in a few months, furthermore the way they were attempting to do it was all wrong. He explained how to do it properly and went about his business. On his way home he passed the siege, they were now doing as he had said and were now successful, that is killing Mohammedans in the process of taking the city. He told them so, too ! Not a hippie, flower child at all !

tim

Frank Rega wrote a book describing this well: https://tanbooks.benedictpress.com/index...rsion+mos/
The best way to know the REAL Francis is to read the Little Flowers of Saint Francis by Thomas of Celano, who knew him personally and was a fellow friar, one of the first. The stories might be a little embellished, I don't know, but it's the oldest source we have.

Francis picked up the scriptures and read Christ's admonition to the rich young man – to sell everything he had and to give to the poor, and follow Him. Francis was a preacher, a beggar, a miracle worker, a lover of creation, a troubadour, and the first stigmatist, that we know of. He was a lover of souls. His only goal was to imitate Christ perfectly, if that meant being gentle at times, or firm at times.

St. Francis is the most popular saint in history, even among non-Catholics. Why? I believe it was his simplicity, and of course the love of Christ within him. It has been written that he was the man who most resembled Christ. I once heard the testimony of a former Baptist turned Catholic convert, who once hated everything Catholic --- except Saint Francis! it was his love of Francis that made him investigate the Catholic faith. He figured, well, the Catholics have St. Francis... so they can't be ALL bad!

Yes, the hippies and peaceniks have made him their poster boy. That is the prevailing image and ethos even among some Franciscans today. I'm not interested in promoting the stereotypes, the hippie or Voris's “He-Man.” I would just point people to his biographies.

I once had the St. Francis Omnibus of Sources, two red volumes as thick as telephone books.. containing not only the hagiographies but also Francis' own writings and his original Rule. It was a complete work.. and a complete picture. 
(01-31-2012, 08:22 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: [ -> ]The best way to know the REAL Francis is to read the Little Flowers of Saint Francis by Thomas of Celano, who knew him personally and was a fellow friar, one of the first. The stories might be a little embellished, I don't know, but it's the oldest source we have.

Francis picked up the scriptures and read Christ's admonition to the rich young man – to sell everything he had and to give to the poor, and follow Him. Francis was a preacher, a beggar, a miracle worker, a lover of creation, a troubadour, and the first stigmatist, that we know of. He was a lover of souls. His only goal was to imitate Christ perfectly, if that meant being gentle at times, or firm at times.

Agree completely.
(01-31-2012, 08:22 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: [ -> ]The best way to know the REAL Francis is to read the Little Flowers of Saint Francis by Thomas of Celano, who knew him personally and was a fellow friar, one of the first.

Which just happens to be available online at the awesomest resource for tradtional Catholicism ever: http://www.fisheaters.com/thelittleflowe...front.html
:)
I know about the Flowers.  I have them and St. Bonaventure's hagiography.,
(01-31-2012, 07:20 PM)Guardian Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-31-2012, 03:01 PM)Iolanthe Wrote: [ -> ]There is nothing wrong with my tone. I'm annoyed because I get tired of watching people like Voris making the Church look like something it's not. If you're too sensitive to see a woman doing that without your head spinning out of control, you are the problem. Not me.

You're overreacting.  Cool off already.  I told you I agreed with part of what you wrote.  All I'm saying is DON'T be outraged if people read your post and throw the feminist flag due to the fact that your sarcastic tone of voice makes it sound a lot like "woman are just as good if not better than men."

Tiresome and predictable. You are obviously one of those paranoid men who are so insecure that they see feminism everywhere. You imagined, completely, that I was using a sarcastic tone (I wasn't) and then you pretended that sarcasm = feminism. It doesn't. You're having an emotional reaction. Nothing that you're saying is making any sense.

Quote:
Quote:PS. You're working awfully hard to ignore my original points about St. Francis and how trads overemphasize the masculine at the expense of everything else. Care to address those points? If you nitpick one tiny thing in a discussion, you run the risk of looking intellectually dishonest and undeserving of being taken seriously.

No I'm not....I actually agree with most of what you said in your original post.  I think you're absolutely right when you explain St. Francis's temperament, and you're spot on when you mentioned trads who are armchair theologians.  I actually laughed out loud when I read it. 

I only chimed in because you were outraged that Ineffible1 disagreed with you on the crucifixion (NOT St. Francis) and I thought I'd add my two cents in.  Incidentally, did you read the part where I said I agreed with both of you and explained why?

Here's some free advice.  I don't know you, and you don't know me, so don't assume that I'm "just like everyone else".  Incidentally, that also is not a free pass to you saying whatever you want.  In a debate people disagree with eachother.  Get over it.  Sarcasm and hostility automatically lead to people not listening or taking you seriously. 

But you are acting like you know me. You had a predictable, knee-jerk reaction and started flinging around accusations of feminism. Whether you agreed with my original point or not, you should not have done that, and you should not be trying to blame "my tone" for your reaction. The appropriate thing for you to do now is to acknowledge you read my writing too quickly, had an irrational reaction to it, and make sure not to do it again.

You accused me of being a feminist. That is a really big, really insulting thing to say to a Catholic woman who is also a total stranger to you. It is a cause for offense. That's why I'm offended. Don't do it again, and don't play victim here. That's all.
(01-31-2012, 09:57 PM)Iolanthe Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-31-2012, 07:20 PM)Guardian Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-31-2012, 03:01 PM)Iolanthe Wrote: [ -> ]There is nothing wrong with my tone. I'm annoyed because I get tired of watching people like Voris making the Church look like something it's not. If you're too sensitive to see a woman doing that without your head spinning out of control, you are the problem. Not me.

You're overreacting.  Cool off already.  I told you I agreed with part of what you wrote.  All I'm saying is DON'T be outraged if people read your post and throw the feminist flag due to the fact that your sarcastic tone of voice makes it sound a lot like "woman are just as good if not better than men."

Tiresome and predictable. You are obviously one of those paranoid men who are so insecure that they see feminism everywhere. You imagined, completely, that I was using a sarcastic tone (I wasn't) and then you pretended that sarcasm = feminism. It doesn't. You're having an emotional reaction. Nothing that you're saying is making any sense.

Guardian seems like a reasonable person who was really trying to communicate. He is not the problem here.  He did not deserve the way you talked to him. Person after person tells you there is something off about your tone, but you choose to ignore it.  You do come across as angry and emotional.  You do react to some of the issues that feminists react to.

Guardian, I have been appreciating your posts and hope that you will not be discouraged from posting here by Iolanthe's attack on you.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17