FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Stupid Catholics
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
This couldn't come at a more opportune time, with all the talk about "dialogue" and false charity going on around here:
lol

I gotta go to work, but I'll watch it later tonight
I'm almost — almost! — shocked that Mr. Voris didn't mention Pope Benedict, who's the first non-Thomist Pontiff in centuries.  By his own admission, he (when he was Fr. Ratzinger and a peritus) and other Fathers of the Second Vatican Council worked to remove scholastic terminology in the treatment of certain topics for the advancement of the council's new outlook on ecumenism.  It's right there in his Theological Highlights of Vatican II (cf. p. 61-73).
(02-08-2013, 04:46 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]I'm almost — almost! — shocked that Mr. Voris didn't mention Pope Benedict, who's the first non-Thomist Pontiff in centuries.  By his own admission, he (when he was Fr. Ratzinger and a peritus) and other Fathers of the Second Vatican Council worked to remove scholastic terminology in the treatment of certain topics for the advancement of the council's new outlook on ecumenism.  It's right there in his Theological Highlights of Vatican II (cf. p. 66ff.).


He'll dance right up to that line, but won't cross it.
  There will be no "new evangelization" until the Church's leaders get's it's own house in order. At heart it's a deep crisis of faith and sorry to say it but a robust interpretation of the Second Vatican Council is not enough. In this Year of Faith the modern Church is celebrating the very Council that helped--to quote Hans Urs Von Balthasar--"raze the bastions" of the Church and allow the floodgates of worldliness to inundate it. Personally I think only a worldwide vicious persecution will separate the wheat from the chaff. As far as the US is concerned I think we will see a  St. John Fisher situation where there is only one prelate that will not be willing to bargain with the devil and trade Christ for Belial and it will only be the martyric witnesses of serious faithful Catholic priests, religious and laymen that will re-ignite the fire of the Faith here in the US and throughout the world. Something along the lines of the Great Flood is about the only thing that is going to wake the Church from her pathetic flirtation with modernity. Only something that brings out the reality of being hated to the point of being tortured and killed for the faith will put an end to, say, professional ecumenism and endless committees about everything but the life of grace and the salvation of the soul. As for me I hope and pray that should this persecution occur I and everyone else reading this may be given the grace to "persevere to the end". Something serious has to wake up the Church and strip it to it's essentials or it will be business as usual. Christianity has to be about life and death, heaven and hell, light and darkness, the world and the Kingdom. If it's not about the ultimate things of life it's just salt that's lost it's savor or rotten vines fit to be pruned and cast into the flames. For too long the Church's leaders have made it about consensus and political correctness and endless nuance and pastoral solutions where quite literally entire generations have been robbed of the fullness of the Faith by the very men who Christ Himself entrusted with shepherding souls to Heaven and away from hell. For too long the leaders of the Church have quite literally not passed on the Faith almost at all on a worldwide scale. That should be heartbreaking. It's a betrayal of epic, cosmic proportions.
formerbuddhist,
OUTSTANDING post!

As for "razing the bastions," it had quite a specific meaning: to do away with the established dogmatic formulas, Tradition (consensus of Fathers and Theologians), and Scholastic theology.  Here are some pages which help us to better understand the phrase:

http://www.waragainstbeing.com/partii-brokencisterns

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNo...PartIV.htm

http://www.traditioninaction.org/Progres...stions.htm

"All my studies in the course of my formative years in the Jesuit Order constituted a fierce and bitter struggle with the desolation of Theology, with what men had done to the glory of Revelation; I could simply not bear this expression of God's Word.  I would have wished to strike out left and right with the fury of a Samson, and with his awesome power I would have sent the temple crashing down on us all.  But, since my mission was only beginning, there was no possibility of imposing my plans; I just had to live with my infinite indignation as long as things remained the way they were.  I mentioned practically nothing of it to anyone.  Przywara, however, understood everything even without openly revealing it in words; as for the rest of them, no one could have understood me.  I wrote the Apocalypse with that fury which proposed to destroy a world by sheer violence, with the intention of rebuilding it at all costs from the ground up" (Urs von Balthasar).



"In a certain sense, the theology of the first half of the [20th] century was more balanced, but also more closed within itself.  Much of that theology lived inside the box of Neo-Scholasticism.  It had greater certainty and logical lucidity than today's theology, but it was far removed from the real world.  The adventure that began in the Council took theology out of that box and exposed it to the fresh air of today's life.

"Consequently this exposed it to the risk of new unbalances, since it was subject to divergent tendencies without the protection of a system.  This caused theology to look for new balances in the context of an open and lively dialogue with today's reality.

"This step seems to me not only justified, but also necessary, because theology should serve faith and evangelization, and, for this reason, must face reality as it is today ....  Therefore, it was a just and necessary step, although also a risky one ....  But risk is part of a necessary adventure" (Cardinal Ratzinger, 1994).

http://www.traditioninaction.org/Progres...ticism.htm
(02-08-2013, 06:42 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: [ -> ]  There will be no "new evangelization" until the Church's leaders get's it's own house in order. At heart it's a deep crisis of faith and sorry to say it but a robust interpretation of the Second Vatican Council is not enough. In this Year of Faith the modern Church is celebrating the very Council that helped--to quote Hans Urs Von Balthasar--"raze the bastions" of the Church and allow the floodgates of worldliness to inundate it. Personally I think only a worldwide vicious persecution will separate the wheat from the chaff. As far as the US is concerned I think we will see a  St. John Fisher situation where there is only one prelate that will not be willing to bargain with the devil and trade Christ for Belial and it will only be the martyric witnesses of serious faithful Catholic priests, religious and laymen that will re-ignite the fire of the Faith here in the US and throughout the world. Something along the lines of the Great Flood is about the only thing that is going to wake the Church from her pathetic flirtation with modernity. Only something that brings out the reality of being hated to the point of being tortured and killed for the faith will put an end to, say, professional ecumenism and endless committees about everything but the life of grace and the salvation of the soul. As for me I hope and pray that should this persecution occur I and everyone else reading this may be given the grace to "persevere to the end". Something serious has to wake up the Church and strip it to it's essentials or it will be business as usual. Christianity has to be about life and death, heaven and hell, light and darkness, the world and the Kingdom. If it's not about the ultimate things of life it's just salt that's lost it's savor or rotten vines fit to be pruned and cast into the flames. For too long the Church's leaders have made it about consensus and political correctness and endless nuance and pastoral solutions where quite literally entire generations have been robbed of the fullness of the Faith by the very men who Christ Himself entrusted with shepherding souls to Heaven and away from hell. For too long the leaders of the Church have quite literally not passed on the Faith almost at all on a worldwide scale. That should be heartbreaking. It's a betrayal of epic, cosmic proportions.

Hear, hear!
(02-08-2013, 04:46 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]I'm almost — almost! — shocked that Mr. Voris didn't mention Pope Benedict, who's the first non-Thomist Pontiff in centuries.  By his own admission, he (when he was Fr. Ratzinger and a peritus) and other Fathers of the Second Vatican Council worked to remove scholastic terminology in the treatment of certain topics for the advancement of the council's new outlook on ecumenism.  It's right there in his Theological Highlights of Vatican II (cf. p. 61-73).

If I'm not mistaken, Blessed John Paul II was a tertiary Carmelite, so we've had a couple of non-Thomists lately.  Saint Pius X was a Secular Franciscan, so he may have been more into Bonaventure.
(02-08-2013, 08:25 PM)Melchior Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-08-2013, 04:46 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]I'm almost — almost! — shocked that Mr. Voris didn't mention Pope Benedict, who's the first non-Thomist Pontiff in centuries.  By his own admission, he (when he was Fr. Ratzinger and a peritus) and other Fathers of the Second Vatican Council worked to remove scholastic terminology in the treatment of certain topics for the advancement of the council's new outlook on ecumenism.  It's right there in his Theological Highlights of Vatican II (cf. p. 61-73).

If I'm not mistaken, Blessed John Paul II was a tertiary Carmelite, so we've had a couple of non-Thomists lately.  Saint Pius X was a Secular Franciscan, so he may have been more into Bonaventure.

I must correct myself:  Pope Benedict, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, "was the first man in his position [Prefect of the CDF] in centuries who did not take Thomas Aquinas as his philosophical and theological master" (George Weigel, Witness to Hope, p. 443f.).

I was not speaking of their Orders, and I had the wrong position in mind.  My apologies.
Mr. Voris said something to the effect: “how many people hit the pause button when talking to family, friends, or coworkers to challenge the basic underpinnings of their thoughts”.  Or something like that.  Sorry if I misquoted.

Anyways; I frequently do just that.  I am often looked at as being: extreme confrontational, uncharitable, judgmental, and bigoted at worst; and just an annoying person to be avoided at best.  Who wants to be considered these things?

Also, most people just don’t have a clue; including many Catholics.

Today at work a Drill Sergeant (self indentified Non-Denominational Christian) and another Permanent Party Cadre Soldier (self indentified Roman Catholic) was talking to new recruits about how they don’t have to legally follow unlawful orders, and how morality comes into play when determining if an order is lawful.

I decided to hit this “pause button” and play devil’s advocate a bit.  I asked “how can we determine if an order is moral?”  The Catholic answered “it is whatever you think is wrong or right” and the non-denominational Christian answered “it is whatever the Army says is moral and they determine that by what modern culture says”.

Typical relativistic crap.  These “Russian Errors” are firmly entrenched in the culture.

Consecrate Russia now!
Pages: 1 2 3 4