FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Counter-reformation 2.0
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
(02-27-2017, 10:48 PM)In His Love Wrote: [ -> ]Why do you think it's anti-free will, Melkite?

Interrogating suspected heretics?  Is this only suspected heretics within the clergy, or the general population as well?

Trials by inquisition - how does this work in a secular republic?  Or is the intended goal to be a Catholic theocracy?

Men need to be called to manhood, effeminacy purged - I don't think that that is necessarily a bad goal, but who gets to decide what "proper" manhood is and what is effeminate?  If you look back a few years ago before the toxic trads fled to Westboro Catholic, there was a continuing argument over what kind of masculinity should be forced upon the populace and what was considered effeminacy.  The fact that such a social schism exists within those who identify as Catholic illustrates that there is no clearly defined, even from a Catholic perspective, rule of proper or expected masculinity.  If you remember Mikemac, he gleefully recounted how he and his friend would go down to a gay bar every Saturday when they were teenagers and throw rotten tomatoes at homosexuals as they were leaving the bar.  He sincerely believed he was not sinning by doing that.  The Harlequin King bragged about how his backyard was big enough to dispose of the bodies of homosexuals that were cleansed from the populace.  Given the context of the thread and how he followed up, I believe he was partially joking, but also partially serious.  They are members of the Westboro Catholic forum now, and they spew the same vitriol (or at least they did in the past,  not sure what's going on over there now), are applauded by the supposedly devout Catholic administrators, and those that call them out are banned for "supporting the homosexual agenda."  Will Catholics such as they define masculinity and effeminacy?

"no more Jesus loves everybody" - What does that even mean?  Does Jesus not love everybody?  What on earth could possibly be the purpose of teaching that Jesus doesn't love everybody?

Catholic politicians who support a myriad of social evils, including sexual education.  What is perverse about sexual education in se?  Should a puritanical sterilization of human sexuality in education occur?  Sexual education should be left to just the parents, many of whom shirk from the responsibility?  What happens when children are born to parents who refuse to properly educate them about sexuality?  Is it truly better for them to continue in ignorance than to be taught about it by anyone other than their parents?  We used to have sexual education based on puritanical idiocy in this country - it's why we're the only country in the industrialized world that regularly mutilates the genitals of boys.  It no longer takes place because of a puritanical understanding of sexuality, but that is how it got started here.  And granted, it originated in Protestantism, but if we're accusing sexual education itself of being perverse, will a Catholic social reign tolerate genital mutilation in the name of sexual purity?  Will people be excommunicated if they don't heed the call to puritanical fanaticism?

Regarding free will, I think Justin's last couple of sentences illustrate it:

Quote: Catholics who live in democracies will be told of the grave importance to vote for someone who is in line with Church doctrine and teaching.  The Social Reign of the Christ the King should be preached far and wide, and when it becomes viable, nations should become Catholic confessional states, heresy and immorality (adultery, sodomy, fornication) should be declared punishable crimes.  A strong stigma should be set against these sins.

Will those who refuse to vote according to the dictates of an SSPX Vatican be excommunicated?  If nations should become Catholic confessional states, it sounds like the goal is to slowly do away with republican freedoms and replace them with a Catholic moral theocracy.  Heresy and sexual immorality should be punishable crimes.  So if I just can't believe that the triune God is the true God, and I express that publicly, I should be liable to civil or criminal penalty?  Yeah, that's pretty anti-free will.  If two consenting adults have immoral sex in the privacy of one of their homes, and don't brag about in public, when it doesn't hurt anyone, physically or spiritually, except for themselves if at all, it should be punished civilly or criminally?  Yeah, that's pretty anti-free will.  No one is going to know if they keep it private?  The entire reason we have legal gay marriage right now, what got the ball rolling, was two gay men having sex in a private home and police barging in on it.  Yeah, in a Catholic theocracy, if it's Westboro Catholics that deciding what is approved public morality, police are going to barge into private homes in search of private immorality, no doubt about it.  Unfortunately, liberals today don't have a monopoly on fascist tendencies.

(02-27-2017, 11:26 PM)Dominicus Wrote: [ -> ]Yep anti-free-will all around. Just like traffic lights and socks. I should have the right to publicly aerate my feet at my own discretion, to suggest otherwise would be positively medieval. Just the same to suggest that we should treat our God with respect or rather anything but loathing would be downright evil.

You're right.  Traffic lights and socks are a good comparison to home invasions and religious thought crimes.  Your points are irrelevant to my criticism and your comparison is fallacious.

Quote:As we all know, He is actually a Mesopotamian war god who just likes to mess with us for kicks.

True, though also irrelevant to my criticism.

ETA: Actually, he's a Canaanite war god.  Canaan was never considered part of Mesopotamia, either geographically or culturally.

The term 'Westboro Catholics' doesn't make sense. Westboro, the fact that it's full of heretics aside, preaches that God hates people (which He does not; He does hate sin, however).

I think you need to find a good counselor or therapist, Catholic if possible, and come to grips with your personal injury/injuries. As it is, when you don't outright blaspheme, you come dangerously close sometimes.

Does this sound like a so-called "war god" to you?

"The Lord will give strength to his people: the Lord will bless his people with peace. " - Psalm 29:11

"For the mountains shall be moved, and the hills shall tremble; but my mercy shall not depart from thee, and the covenant of my peace shall not be moved: said the Lord that hath mercy on thee. " - Isaiah 54:10

"I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world." - John 16:33

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God." - Matthew 5:9

Remember, if it weren't for God, you wouldn't even be able to air these complaints.
(02-28-2017, 12:15 PM)In His Love Wrote: [ -> ]The term 'Westboro Catholics' doesn't make sense. Westboro, the fact that it's full of heretics aside, preaches that God hates people (which He does not; He does hate sin, however).

The people that fled over to Suscipe Domine proudy have a God Hates Fags mentality, that's why I call them Westboro Catholic.

Quote:Does this sound like a so-called "war god" to you?

"The Lord will give strength to his people: the Lord will bless his people with peace. " - Psalm 29:11

"For the mountains shall be moved, and the hills shall tremble; but my mercy shall not depart from thee, and the covenant of my peace shall not be moved: said the Lord that hath mercy on thee. " - Isaiah 54:10

"I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world." - John 16:33

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God." - Matthew 5:9

Reading through the books of Moses, even some of the historical books, God speaks very differently.  Either the god of the Old Testament is truly a bronze age, human invention, or if he really is the God of the universe, he is schizophrenic by human standards.

Quote:Remember, if it weren't for God, you wouldn't even be able to air these complaints.

The only thing I pray to God for anymore is that when I die, he'll let me cease to exist.  There is no peace outside of oblivion.
(02-27-2017, 05:25 PM)Fuerza Wrote: [ -> ]I also agree with using Aquinas (combined with the Roman Catechism or Catechism of St. Pius X) as a basis for the training of all seminarians. I would take it one step further and completely standardize the seminary curriculum, likely based on one of the ones currently in use in the FSSP/ICKSP/SSPX.

Yes, the Pius X catechism is great, as is that of Trent.

Quote: The only difference between seminaries, at least for now, should be whether they teach only the TLM or both the TLM and a (substantially modified) OF

I would think it a very bad idea to formally instruct in any manner of the OF -- "modified" or not.  It sends the wrong message about The Restoration and also sends a wrong message about the objective and universal standard for liturgy.

Quote: With regard to the liturgy, I would go a slightly different direction, although I generally agree with what you wrote. Rather than return everyone to the TLM, even gradually, I would begin a significant revision of the NO. The entire Mass would be offered ad orientem, with the exception of the Gospel, homily and any part of the liturgy where the rubrics specifically call for a versus populum orientation.


This is already being done in many parishes, by the way.  (Not sure if you knew that.)  It's been a voluntary measure.  For example, at a parish near me the vernacular Mass is being offered only Ad Orientem.  Kneeling at the altar rail has been restored. (No more CITH.)  The pastor has engineered this with remarkable smoothness and apparent lack of resistance, although he did introduce the concept of A.O. a few months ago, by way of a homily at the "Vigil" Mass -- kind of warning about it and simultaneously testing the waters to see if there would be full-on revolt.  There wasn't.  Priests need to become more confident of something called authority.

Quote: Additionally, I wouldn't get rid of altar girls right away. Instead I would set strict guidelines for how altar girls dressed (no make-up or nail polish, hair in a bun etc...) and require that all sign a statement promising fidelity to Catholic teaching on the all-male priesthood.
Again, I disagree with half measures and conciliatory measures.  Sends the wrong message.  There is absolutely nothing to apologize for or accommodate to.  By the way, in the example above?  Females are no longer (yay!) invited into the sanctuary for the weekday vernacular Masses.  It used to be, recently in fact, that they did the usual N.O. thing of women "taking over" most of the "participation" aspect by going to the lecturn (ugh), proclaiming the readings, saying the English psalm response, and leading singing (badly).  I'm not normally an N.O. attendee; it's just that I visit this parish on occasion and have been following their changes.

In general, by the way, traditionalist orders and apostolates are not being trained in the N.O. whatsoever and so can't say it -- unless they were unlucky enough to have learned it prior, but few if any are coming from the N.O.; they're being trained from the ground up without the N.O. and Conciliar nonsense, which is as it should be.  And it should stay that way.  This is not the time to sell out with false apologies to the N.O.
(02-27-2017, 02:11 PM)Justin Alphonsus Wrote: [ -> ]Clergy & Religious

All clergy will be instructed using St. Thomas as there basis.  All seminaries should place a strong emphasis on Marian devotion and Mariology. 
Homosexuals should be discouraged from the priesthood.  Any priest who is found to be actively engaging in homosexual or heterosexual acts is to be given a severe reprimand, and made to do public penance.  St. Peter Damian would be a good resource on this department.
No more married deacons will be ordained, and the traditional order of the reception of the sacrament of Holy Orders will be reinstated.
More monasteries should be founded following traditional rules. 

I would restore the stronger measures that used to be in place. 

(1) Religious Orders need to visibly demonstrate communion with tradition in their documents, in their practices, in their liturgy, in any oral statements, on their websites, and in their formation of new religious.  There is no point in going to a Counter Reformation (or a Restoration, as I prefer to call it) without insisting on uniformity.  Individuals within Orders, or entire Orders, which defy tradition or effectively invent a new religion should be stripped of their titles, their authority, their position, and the support of the Holy See.  Some of you don't realize how strict this was before V2.  If a religious, you were either a loyal son or daughter of the Church, or not.  Anyone who challenged Church teaching was in jeopardy of being kicked out of their Order, and it was unheard of that entire orders would challenge Church teaching, Church practice, etc.

(2) Community Life as essential to Religious Life would be restored.  No more phony feminists living in solo apartments and wearing street clothes and living independent lifestyles.  I repeat:  Community is essential to Religious Life, for many reasons and in many ways.

(3) Mandatory, appropriate, recognizable habits (not variable street clothes) would be reinstated.

(4) The original mission of the Founders and Foundresses would be restored as a condition of communion with Rome.  Thus, the original missions of:

Teaching
Nursing
Orphanages
Work for/with the Poor

New Orders of active religious would also have to align with one of those or another Corporal Work of Mercy.  The See would have to approve any such new constitutions.

(5) Lesbianism would be rooted out.  Anyone who was actively practicing a Lesbian lifestyle, in or out of the convent, would be expelled and excommunicated until she repented and denounced the practice.  As it is right now, some Orders (really, loose communities, not orders) are about 50% active Lesbians.
In reality, the only thing I can think of that would reject the advances of anti-Catholic thought is a highly devout Catholic culture. Government intervention is a way of using fear to subvert these types of things, but can only work so much. In a sense using a strong culture would appeal to a capitalistic type thought where the market regulates itself. If you push homosexuality to a highly secular culture you will get acceptance. If you push homosexuality to a highly religious culture it will be rejected. This doesn't require the government to send police raids to houses where people having gay sex or whatever. Sure, elements of this would still exist in private, but the culture can easily regulate these things to ensure they don't become prevalent. This can apply to other things like fornication, excessive drinking, drugs, etc.

The primary element is having a culture that can do that on its own. Of course, we know that humans like debauchery quite a bit. It's why governments throughout history (usually backed by the Church) have tried to use law to keep it at bay. The truth is, that there's no perfect system. In some ways if you want to maintain order you need the government to be fluid so that it can either tighten or loosen control based on the culture of which it governs.


If we're talking about just within the Church, obviously the Church can do whatever it pleases within itself.
My thought on the Mass is the following:

1. Update calendar to include new  Saints and return of any feasts removed by the 1960s
  a) Calendar should use pre-1960s feast rankings, although may be cleaned up a bit
2. Update TLM rubrics slightly in a few ways
  a) Go back to a missal from prior to the Pius XII reforms
  b) 2nd confiteor can be removed at Low Masses (although I'm sure people prefer it not to be)
  c) Ecce agnus dei be added (I don't believe it's actually part of the Mass), Domine non sum dignus to be said by servers rather than priest.
  d) Allowance for a microphone to be used at Low Mass with the exception of the sotto voce parts.

Process (give or take):
1. All abuses in the OF to be removed immediately. Ad orientem, no lay lectors or ministers of communion, communion on the tongue while kneeling at the rail (which will be built immediately at all churches which do not have them), altar boys only.
2. Immediate OF Rubrics changes
  a) Offertory prayers will be translated from TLM and added to the OF.
  b) Eucharistic Prayer I is only to be used, signs of the cross returned
  c) Mystery of Faith returned to its proper location and responsorial removed.
  d) Cum ipso, per ipso... returned to a minor elevation with signs of the cross
  e) Propers of the Mass to be returned to their rightful place and are required to prayed along with two fold prayer of them including psalm and Glory Be
  f) Priests to return to not separating their fingers after touching the consecrated Eucharist until ablutions.
  g) Ablutions include wine
  h) Sign of peace removed
  i) Doxology after Pater Noster removed
  j) Great Amen removed, return to "per omnia secula seculorum"
  k) Last Gospel and Prayers after Mass restored
  l) Gregorian chant restored
3. All priests will be required to be fluent in Latin within 5 years unless they are above the age of 70 otherwise they will be suspended.
    a) All priests must pass an exam which covers topics of theology and Catholic doctrine and moral teaching
    b) All priests will be required to spend a certain amount of time each year taking classes of some sort on Catholic theology
4.  All OF Masses must have the Offertory to the end of Mass in Latin within 2 years
5.  All churches must have at least one Latin Mass within 2 years
5.  The OF will be retired in 5 years to make way for the fully restored Latin Mass
(02-27-2017, 10:47 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]In reading this thread, it is really clear to me how anti-free-will traditional Catholicism is, and it makes me wonder if I lost my faith as I moved towards libertarianism, or if I moved towards libertarianism because I lost my faith.

This may be slightly off topic, but I'm baffled as to how you could see a contradiction in libertariansim (not libertinism!) and Catholocism.

With regards to the OP, I would disagree on phasing out the NO / orienting it more towards a Traditional direction. The NO was imposed overnight, and it can just as easily be removed overnight. :)
(02-28-2017, 10:45 PM)Dave01 Wrote: [ -> ]This may be slightly off topic, but I'm baffled as to how you could see a contradiction in libertariansim (not libertinism!) and Catholocism.

Not Catholicism in general, but traditionalist Catholicism specifically.  Libertarianism and theocracy of any sort are mutually exclusive.
I agree with most of what has been said above comments though I think regarding the mass we should keep the sign of peace as it is a very ancient part of the liturgy. Perhaps just between the clergy though, no waving to your friend in another pew or making out with your fiancé or wandering of to go shake hands with everyone you see. I also think that in certain cases communion could be received under both species though predominantly in the host. Not sure how to go about this, perhaps through intinction.
Pages: 1 2 3