Conversation without Conversion
#11
Quote:I didn't take offense, I offered an opinion.  Since when is offering an opinion, even a strong one, a ridiculous reaction?

I offered my opinion, you asked me why I would say that, and I gave an explanation.  Nothing ridiculous there.  What's ridiculous to me is you dragging the SSPX and Williamson into something completely unrelated.
It wasn't ridiculous because you disagreed with it. What was ridiculous was your reaction. You always seem to be one of the most leveled headed people here, careful, prudent, offering criticism but balancing out.

To call it "garbage" seemed pretty harsh and out of nowhere, especially in light of the other things you tolerate. The SSPX was just an example. I don't want a discussion on that here either. And I apologize.

I also wasn't posting this because I thought it was "funny." I take the Theological Forum very seriously. I posted it because I thought it was a good description of the lukewarmness of so many Catholics. And that fact that it was written almost two decades before Vatican II is pretty astonishing, especially for those who think of the Church before Vatican II as some kind of golden age in the Church.
Reply
#12
I'll take exception to what was said about Franco.  Franco kept communism out of Spain and preserved the Catholic faith.   if he had to be fascistic about it, so be it.  I too would have done the same.  

Mr. Howard Cannon shoots with two barrels (both sides of the mouth) but one is a dud.  He is poorly deficient in history.  Catholicism "retarded progress"?   Where did the idea of the modern university and higher learning spring from?    Doesn't he know?
Reply
#13
(04-16-2009, 05:15 PM)didishroom Wrote:
Quote:Didi, I've warned you before several times about slamming the SSPX outside of that subforum.  For no apparent reason, you drag the SSPX into this because I don't find humor in something you do.  This article you posted and my comments have absolutely nothing to do with the SSPX.

It's obvious you have some unhealthy obsession with that topic, and that's fine, but the rules are the rules.  Last warning.  Keep the anti-SSPX stuff in the right subforum.
I don't recall previous warnings and I did have reasons for bringing up the topic. It wasn't a slamming of the SSPX but a criticism of you. However I will drop it, as you asked.

Here's one of the warnings.  I don't feel like digging around for the rest - if you want to, they're there.

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...sg31743966

As for the rest of the discussion, I don't care.  I just gave my opinion, and if you don't like it, that's fine.

Edit:  here's another http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...sg30903475
Reply
#14
Vincentius,

It is satire. Though a sad kind, because it is true.
Reply
#15
It is interesting to note that, in 1948, the lukewarm Catholic was conceived of as attending daily Mass and saying Prime and Compline every day, and was expected to "justify" the Church's history rather than to lambast it.
Reply
#16
veritatem_dilexisti Wrote:It is interesting to note that, in 1948, the lukewarm Catholic was conceived of as attending daily Mass and saying Prime and Compline every day, and was expected to "justify" the Church's history rather than to lambast it.

I don't mean to sound cynical, but do you have any documentation for this, especially regarding the daily praying of the Divine Office?

If anything, it's been my understanding that traditional Catholics are equally or even more ignorant of the Office than your average Latin Rite Christian. I say this just comparing attendance at Lauds between NO and traditional parishes in my area, and personal conversations. Of course there are problems thinking that traditional Catholics today are of the same mentality, education, etc of Christians from 50 or 60 years ago, but that's another thread...
Reply
#17
(04-16-2009, 07:24 PM)Credo Wrote:
veritatem_dilexisti Wrote:It is interesting to note that, in 1948, the lukewarm Catholic was conceived of as attending daily Mass and saying Prime and Compline every day, and was expected to "justify" the Church's history rather than to lambast it.

I don't mean to sound cynical, but do you have any documentation for this, especially regarding the daily praying of the Divine Office?

Read the article in the first post of this thread. :)
Reply
#18
(04-16-2009, 03:25 PM)didishroom Wrote: by Howard Cannon  April 16th, 2009
Catholicism.org

Take Freud, for instance, and his hypothesis of the Id, Ego, and Super-ego. That’s just what the Church has been teaching in her doctrine of original sin. The Id is original sin, and the Super-ego is the grace we are given to overcome it and to aspire to higher things. And psychoanalysis. That’s just the secular name for Confession.

Do some Catholics really think this? Do they actually compare Freud to the Church?
Reply
#19
I don't know of Catholcis today. But I do know at the time this was written, there were many Jesuits priests who were continuing their education at Jesuit universities along with laymen, and Freud and other disreputable people were being taught. Maybe this is what it references to.
Reply
#20
(04-16-2009, 08:53 PM)didishroom Wrote: I don't know of Catholcis today. But I do know at the time this was written, there were many Jesuits priests who were continuing their education at Jesuit universities along with laymen, and Freud and other disreputable people were being taught. Maybe this is what it references to.

Wow. That's just proof that this intra-eccliastical crisis has been rooting itself deep for decades. Without this foundation, it's unlikely the VII Council would have been so destructive. People didn't just suddenly become evil. This is exactly the sort of Modernist ideology condemned by Pope Pius XII.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)