FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Benedict: Take Joy in the Good of our Separated Brethren - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Benedict: Take Joy in the Good of our Separated Brethren (/showthread.php?tid=58322)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22


Re: Benedict: Take Joy in the Good of our Separated Brethren - Walty - 10-04-2012

(10-04-2012, 08:45 AM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(10-03-2012, 10:36 PM)Walty Wrote: I can agree with that, but even if demon worship has its roots in a natural inclination, it's worth condemning and setting apart in a "sectarian" fashion.

But some (many?) here would absolutely go beserker if Pope Benedict decreed that it is alright for people in Africa to keep their traditional names of days after demon gods, and even their pagan name for Easter. I think some in our midst would line that up as another reason to condemn this "ecumenism" -- Benedict supports demon worship. And yet we have names after Germanic gods, and Easter as well. We actually have quite a few customs derived directly from our ancestors' demon worship. And the Church in that time did not see it fit to expunge them from the people. Some people's attitudes are not informed with history. Conversion entailed a reformation and transformation of beliefs, so that they did not profess or live by false doctrines, but it did not wash away all their customs, even ones some would think were inherently evil. (I mean, have your false demon gods honored by the names of days, and leaving that "blasphemy" on the lips of future generations of Catholics?!) So when some Protestant groups, like the Anglicans, come back, they're not going to be very different than before in many ways. We have to get used to the idea that Protestants, Orthodox, Jews, etc. have a patrimony that the Church will not require to be overturned in order to become Catholic. That's just my take.

I type this on the day of the demon god Thor. Yesterday was the day of Woden, and tomorrow is the day of his wife, the goddess Frigg.  :tiphat: to our pagan demonic ancestors.

I think this is apples and oranges.  The early Church may have accepted pagan names, but it vehemently fought against paganism itself.  It gave paganism no quarter and did not bat an eye at doing what was necessary to root it out and to expose it as the demonic religion that it is.

Our modern heads of the ecumenical movement do not do the latter.  That's what all the fuss is about.  It's not about mere names or calendar dates.  It's about doctrine and practice.


Re: Benedict: Take Joy in the Good of our Separated Brethren - Scriptorium - 10-04-2012

(10-04-2012, 01:47 PM)Walty Wrote: I think this is apples and oranges.  The early Church may have accepted pagan names, but it vehemently fought against paganism itself.  It gave paganism no quarter and did not bat an eye at doing what was necessary to root it out and to expose it as the demonic religion that it is.

Our modern heads of the ecumenical movement do not do the latter.  That's what all the fuss is about.  It's not about mere names or calendar dates.  It's about doctrine and practice.

I do agree that clear teaching should be given to these people, but I disagree that that is what the fuss is about in some quarters. I heard a lot about how JPII shouldn't have worn some Indian headdress or stole. "Inculturation!" was the battle cry. The content of his teaching was almost a footnote, if that, in some instances. Just to exemplify, would you support the idea of Africans drumming during Mass? What about them having vestments in different colors, like black as a color of hope instead of green?


Re: Benedict: Take Joy in the Good of our Separated Brethren - Parmandur - 10-04-2012

(10-03-2012, 08:09 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote:
(10-03-2012, 05:04 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: Regarding the postive versus negative tones, I think the distinction lies in the object of the pronoucement.  In my experience--and this lines up with what I've read from a lot of saints--is the dire warnings work better to keep good Catholics as good Catholics.  When interacting with someone outside the Church, or someone with little care for sin, or someone who already thinks he is saved, etc., the dire warnings don't do much--the positive bears many more fruits.  The pre-Vatican II Popes and Councils tended to be doing just what the negative approach works best for--they are addressing Catholics and intervening to keep them Catholic.  From Vatican II on, the Council and Popes have also been addressing the whole world, and I think that accounts for the change in tone for better or worse (personally I think said change in tone is a mixed bag).

This is an interesting idea, and seems likely enough prima facie.  However, I strongly suspect that we have not only a high rate of people falling away (which would be bad enough) but also a drop in conversions as a result of this "positive" attitude.

Scriptorium,
I'll be the first to admit that I'm negative to a fault in some ways, but that this is one of them is definitely not obvious to me.

The bottom line is we need both, and in balance.  The modern hierarchy's "focus on the positive" far outweighs any focus on the negative among people who are trying to be good Catholics.

Here's the thing: the most rapid increase in conversions to the Catholic Church in history is actually after Vatican II.  Not in the West, generally, though no slouch there, but the crop of conversions since the Council has actually been enormous worldwide.  The trips of JP II to Africa and the rest of the developing world coincided with the conversion of tens of millions to the Catholic Faith.  In pragmatic Evangelical terms, that is impressive.


Re: Benedict: Take Joy in the Good of our Separated Brethren - Scriptorium - 10-04-2012

(10-04-2012, 07:10 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Here's the thing: the most rapid increase in conversions to the Catholic Church in history is actually after Vatican II.  Not in the West, generally, though no slouch there, but the crop of conversions since the Council has actually been enormous worldwide.  The trips of JP II to Africa and the rest of the developing world coincided with the conversion of tens of millions to the Catholic Faith.  In pragmatic Evangelical terms, that is impressive.

There might be by number, but I don't know if by rate, which really could not be measured because we simply do not have the date. But Bl .John Paul II went to places no Pope has ever been, and his personal touch was very memorable I am sure to those people. We do know from the stats that the post-VII slump was recovered in the JPII pontificate. One could say that is expected with any major changes in the Church, not to mention society. I think the real measures is something we could never know, which is how many go to heaven. And in that measure we know which Pope, bishops, Councils, changes, etc. could have been beneficial for people. But I think that is the wrong way to look at things, comparing Popes and Councils, etc.

I hold a view, a sort of "inkling", that from the perspective of oneself, the grace given is equal for salvation for all men. This means that everyone has the same chance to go to heaven. It doesn't matter which time, place, race, or whatever you are situated in. Then why does this other stuff matters? Why not just become a Buddhist? Well, because God has revealed His Church. What he wants is a correspondence to His approaches to us in love. But he approaches each person uniquely. Some may never have the Church, but they still are required to correspondence to the grace given to them. Some have the Church, and they would need to correspondence to that grace given. And we spread the Church because He taught us to. Not as a desperation to save souls, per se, because God doesn't need us to save souls, but to obey His commands and correspondence to that grace. The call of our time is just like the one in the past, "thy will not mine, O Lord." Finally when the days are done, we'll see what really was going on. I don't think any Church actions will be put one against another, but rather how people responded to the grace of their time. Sometimes I think we wish for a grace not of this time, but of another. God's ways are not ours.


Re: Benedict: Take Joy in the Good of our Separated Brethren - Walty - 10-04-2012

(10-04-2012, 04:46 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(10-04-2012, 01:47 PM)Walty Wrote: I think this is apples and oranges.  The early Church may have accepted pagan names, but it vehemently fought against paganism itself.  It gave paganism no quarter and did not bat an eye at doing what was necessary to root it out and to expose it as the demonic religion that it is.

Our modern heads of the ecumenical movement do not do the latter.  That's what all the fuss is about.  It's not about mere names or calendar dates.  It's about doctrine and practice.

I do agree that clear teaching should be given to these people, but I disagree that that is what the fuss is about in some quarters. I heard a lot about how JPII shouldn't have worn some Indian headdress or stole. "Inculturation!" was the battle cry. The content of his teaching was almost a footnote, if that, in some instances. Just to exemplify, would you support the idea of Africans drumming during Mass? What about them having vestments in different colors, like black as a color of hope instead of green?

The Christians who used pagan symbolism or holidays didn't put upon the clothes of the pagan priests.  I believe that that is crossing a line. 

If St. Paul told us to not eat meat offered to a pagan god, why should the Vicar of Christ wear the clothing of a priest of a pagan god?


Re: Benedict: Take Joy in the Good of our Separated Brethren - Mithrandylan - 10-04-2012

(10-04-2012, 08:52 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-04-2012, 04:46 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(10-04-2012, 01:47 PM)Walty Wrote: I think this is apples and oranges.  The early Church may have accepted pagan names, but it vehemently fought against paganism itself.  It gave paganism no quarter and did not bat an eye at doing what was necessary to root it out and to expose it as the demonic religion that it is.

Our modern heads of the ecumenical movement do not do the latter.  That's what all the fuss is about.  It's not about mere names or calendar dates.  It's about doctrine and practice.

I do agree that clear teaching should be given to these people, but I disagree that that is what the fuss is about in some quarters. I heard a lot about how JPII shouldn't have worn some Indian headdress or stole. "Inculturation!" was the battle cry. The content of his teaching was almost a footnote, if that, in some instances. Just to exemplify, would you support the idea of Africans drumming during Mass? What about them having vestments in different colors, like black as a color of hope instead of green?

The Christians who used pagan symbolism or holidays didn't put upon the clothes of the pagan priests.  I believe that that is crossing a line. 

If St. Paul told us to not eat meat offered to a pagan god, why should the Vicar of Christ wear the clothing of a priest of a pagan god?

Not looking to get involved in the discussion, but didn't St Paul say exactly the opposite, that we may eat food that was sacrificed to idols?


Re: Benedict: Take Joy in the Good of our Separated Brethren - Parmandur - 10-04-2012

(10-04-2012, 09:03 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(10-04-2012, 08:52 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-04-2012, 04:46 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(10-04-2012, 01:47 PM)Walty Wrote: I think this is apples and oranges.  The early Church may have accepted pagan names, but it vehemently fought against paganism itself.  It gave paganism no quarter and did not bat an eye at doing what was necessary to root it out and to expose it as the demonic religion that it is.

Our modern heads of the ecumenical movement do not do the latter.  That's what all the fuss is about.  It's not about mere names or calendar dates.  It's about doctrine and practice.

I do agree that clear teaching should be given to these people, but I disagree that that is what the fuss is about in some quarters. I heard a lot about how JPII shouldn't have worn some Indian headdress or stole. "Inculturation!" was the battle cry. The content of his teaching was almost a footnote, if that, in some instances. Just to exemplify, would you support the idea of Africans drumming during Mass? What about them having vestments in different colors, like black as a color of hope instead of green?

The Christians who used pagan symbolism or holidays didn't put upon the clothes of the pagan priests.  I believe that that is crossing a line. 

If St. Paul told us to not eat meat offered to a pagan god, why should the Vicar of Christ wear the clothing of a priest of a pagan god?

Not looking to get involved in the discussion, but didn't St Paul say exactly the opposite, that we may eat food that was sacrificed to idols?

Yes, yes he did.  He said it was perfectly fine, but that it would be prudent to avoid scandal to "weaker brothers" who were scrupulous about the matter.  So there isn't a problem with a Catholic eating at an Indian restaurant with an idol of Ganesh in the kitchen, but the scandal caused by the appearances of the Assisi conferences would be what St. Paul warned against.


Re: Benedict: Take Joy in the Good of our Separated Brethren - Walty - 10-04-2012

(10-04-2012, 09:03 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(10-04-2012, 08:52 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-04-2012, 04:46 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(10-04-2012, 01:47 PM)Walty Wrote: I think this is apples and oranges.  The early Church may have accepted pagan names, but it vehemently fought against paganism itself.  It gave paganism no quarter and did not bat an eye at doing what was necessary to root it out and to expose it as the demonic religion that it is.

Our modern heads of the ecumenical movement do not do the latter.  That's what all the fuss is about.  It's not about mere names or calendar dates.  It's about doctrine and practice.

I do agree that clear teaching should be given to these people, but I disagree that that is what the fuss is about in some quarters. I heard a lot about how JPII shouldn't have worn some Indian headdress or stole. "Inculturation!" was the battle cry. The content of his teaching was almost a footnote, if that, in some instances. Just to exemplify, would you support the idea of Africans drumming during Mass? What about them having vestments in different colors, like black as a color of hope instead of green?

The Christians who used pagan symbolism or holidays didn't put upon the clothes of the pagan priests.  I believe that that is crossing a line. 

If St. Paul told us to not eat meat offered to a pagan god, why should the Vicar of Christ wear the clothing of a priest of a pagan god?

Not looking to get involved in the discussion, but didn't St Paul say exactly the opposite, that we may eat food that was sacrificed to idols?

Well, we kind of see two slightly different responses here.  Acts seems to say that one shouldn't eat meat sacrificed to idols, straight up.

"That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which things keeping yourselves, you shall do well. Fare ye well."
(Acts 15: 29)

St. Paul seems to be a bit less forward with saying that one should never do it, but he also warns against eating the meat because it may very well cause scandal.

"But there is not knowledge in every one. For some until this present, with conscience of the idol: eat as a thing sacrificed to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.  But meat doth not commend us to God. For neither, if we eat, shall we have the more; nor, if we eat not, shall we have the less.  But take heed lest perhaps this your liberty become a stumblingblock to the weak. For if a man see him that hath knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not his conscience, being weak, be emboldened to eat those things which are sacrificed to idols?
And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ hath died?  Now when you sin thus against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat scandalize my brother, I will never eat flesh, lest I should scandalize my brother."

(1 Corinthians 8:7-13)

So, I guess I would have to defer to someone who knows more about Scripture as St. Paul and Acts seem to be in some disagreement here, but I would argue that, at the very least, the post-conciliar popes have wrought much scandal with these actions, which is something that St. Paul explicitly warns against.

And it seems that St. Paul didn't ever eat meat sacrificed to idols for just this very reason.  


Re: Benedict: Take Joy in the Good of our Separated Brethren - Parmandur - 10-04-2012

(10-04-2012, 09:19 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-04-2012, 09:03 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(10-04-2012, 08:52 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-04-2012, 04:46 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(10-04-2012, 01:47 PM)Walty Wrote: I think this is apples and oranges.  The early Church may have accepted pagan names, but it vehemently fought against paganism itself.  It gave paganism no quarter and did not bat an eye at doing what was necessary to root it out and to expose it as the demonic religion that it is.

Our modern heads of the ecumenical movement do not do the latter.  That's what all the fuss is about.  It's not about mere names or calendar dates.  It's about doctrine and practice.

I do agree that clear teaching should be given to these people, but I disagree that that is what the fuss is about in some quarters. I heard a lot about how JPII shouldn't have worn some Indian headdress or stole. "Inculturation!" was the battle cry. The content of his teaching was almost a footnote, if that, in some instances. Just to exemplify, would you support the idea of Africans drumming during Mass? What about them having vestments in different colors, like black as a color of hope instead of green?

The Christians who used pagan symbolism or holidays didn't put upon the clothes of the pagan priests.  I believe that that is crossing a line. 

If St. Paul told us to not eat meat offered to a pagan god, why should the Vicar of Christ wear the clothing of a priest of a pagan god?

Not looking to get involved in the discussion, but didn't St Paul say exactly the opposite, that we may eat food that was sacrificed to idols?

Well, we kind of see two slightly different responses here.  Acts seems to say that one shouldn't eat meat sacrificed to idols, straight up.

"That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which things keeping yourselves, you shall do well. Fare ye well."
(Acts 15: 29)

St. Paul seems to be a bit less forward with saying that one should never do it, but he also warns against eating the meat because it may very well cause scandal.

"But there is not knowledge in every one. For some until this present, with conscience of the idol: eat as a thing sacrificed to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.  But meat doth not commend us to God. For neither, if we eat, shall we have the more; nor, if we eat not, shall we have the less.  But take heed lest perhaps this your liberty become a stumblingblock to the weak. For if a man see him that hath knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not his conscience, being weak, be emboldened to eat those things which are sacrificed to idols?
And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ hath died?  Now when you sin thus against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat scandalize my brother, I will never eat flesh, lest I should scandalize my brother."

(1 Corinthians 8:7-13)

So, I guess I would have to defer to someone who knows more about Scripture as St. Paul and Acts seem to be in some disagreement here, but I would argue that, at the very least, the post-conciliar popes have wrought much scandal with these actions, which is something that St. Paul explicitly warns against.

And it seems that St. Paul didn't ever eat meat sacrificed to idols for just this very reason.  

I Corinthians is St. Paul's gloss and interpretation of the Council of Jerusalem; that the reason to avoid meat sacrificed to idols (i.e., all meat not from a Jewish butcher at the time) is not because of bad juju but rather because of the danger of scandal.  Which is, indeed, the rock JP2  hit with Assisi.


Re: Benedict: Take Joy in the Good of our Separated Brethren - Walty - 10-04-2012

But I don't think we can take this to mean that there isn't bad juju involved with paganism.  We're still to refrain from engaging in New Age practices, Wicca, witchcraft, magic, etc.  That isn't just to avoid scandal.