Name That Cleric! Installment Sept. 3rd/09.
#11
(09-03-2009, 08:52 PM)Gerard Wrote: It could be that then-Card. Ratzinger was doing what Fr. Malachi Martin was doing in the late 60's and early 70's.  Trying to utilize the language and forms of the popular theologians of the day and explaining Catholic Orthodoxy in language suited to that audience.   That stuff is full of sentences that often deride something precariously close to Catholic Doctrine and you have to bring a lot of orthodoxy to the table to place it in context.   In this mode, they are always good at explaining what something is not, without supplementing it with what is. 

An excellent insight, one I was going to make on the last thread, but decided not to. "Carpy" Diem, as I add a fresh flounder for your insight.

To some extent what these men were doing follows a paradigm set up by St. Augustine in the Confessions and even men before him. It is a tried and true method of teaching. You question the perceived reality by first developing some rapport, then demonstrating that we perhaps do not understand things as well as we think, which opens us to the teacher providing the answers.

St. Augustine was a master of doing this, but he always provided solid answers to the matters, or led you to them.

The problem with the way Cardinal Ratzinger, as an example of others too, works is by making people to question their understanding of the truth, suggesting that there may be another way to understand things, but never then trying to show how the proper understanding is the traditional Catholic doctrine.

As you say, they explain the doctrine, but sometimes don't tell what it actually is. Thus, even more of a reason not to take the words in these quotes as the credo of the Pope. I think it seems pretty clear (having read some of his writing) that he is not necessarily trying to promote a logical Thomistic approach to doctrine, but trying to explain doctrine in a way he things the world will more easily accept.
Reply
#12
(09-03-2009, 10:32 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(09-03-2009, 10:17 PM)Adonis33 Wrote: I find the way you call the Holy Father simply "Joseph Ratzinger" pretty disrespectful.

Your disdain of the Pope reminds me of some protestants views of the Pope. At least you have SOMEBODY who shares your views of our Pontiff.

Yes, but at least, even those prots know he's Pope, eh?!

:readrules:

The rules are pretty clear that while one need not personally accept Benedict XVI as the Pope in order to participate here:

"Anyone is most welcome to participate if they will respect the sensibilities of traditional Catholics who respect the Petrine Ministry and the man who holds the office"

While nothing posted on this site by the OP is itself disrespectful of the Papacy or the present Pope, the material he links to in order to generate site traffic and hook people from here into his blog, exclusively controlled by him is not only disrespectful of the Papacy, but demonstrates malice in a desire to intentionally quote only select sections of books he has not read which he judges to be heresy in order to suggest a sede vacante.

Since that material is linked, and in order to participate in the thread we are forced to read that material off-site, it seems that the OP should be held to those same rules when he posts promotional links here. If those links are to material which violates the rules, it would seem that the post itself violates the rules.
Reply
#13
This really is the sin of calumny, and against the Vicar of Christ, no less.

Some people have no limits to their depravity.
Reply
#14
(09-04-2009, 12:26 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(09-03-2009, 10:32 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(09-03-2009, 10:17 PM)Adonis33 Wrote: I find the way you call the Holy Father simply "Joseph Ratzinger" pretty disrespectful.

Your disdain of the Pope reminds me of some protestants views of the Pope. At least you have SOMEBODY who shares your views of our Pontiff.

Yes, but at least, even those prots know he's Pope, eh?!

:readrules:

The rules are pretty clear that while one need not personally accept Benedict XVI as the Pope in order to participate here:

"Anyone is most welcome to participate if they will respect the sensibilities of traditional Catholics who respect the Petrine Ministry and the man who holds the office"

While nothing posted on this site by the OP is itself disrespectful of the Papacy or the present Pope, the material he links to in order to generate site traffic and hook people from here into his blog, exclusively controlled by him is not only disrespectful of the Papacy, but demonstrates malice in a desire to intentionally quote only select sections of books he has not read which he judges to be heresy in order to suggest a sede vacante.

Since that material is linked, and in order to participate in the thread we are forced to read that material off-site, it seems that the OP should be held to those same rules when he posts promotional links here. If those links are to material which violates the rules, it would seem that the post itself violates the rules.

As I pointed out earler, every post is a hook to his sede blog or a thinly veiled promotion of his sede position. Fishie for you.
Reply
#15
(09-03-2009, 09:05 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: That's a quote clearly taken without context on purpose to make it what it is not.

He goes on to say that it transcends history and "it [the Resurrection] belongs, at the same time, to this event that it both reaches above history and is founded and anchored in history".

The Crucifixion, the one-time death of Jesus, was an historical event, and so was the Resurrection, but the Resurrection did not end.  Christ is no longer dead, but He is still Resurrected. 

My apologies, the following quotation which you provided, I had not seen.  I will take it off of the site due to the fact that one could look at it in this light.  I thank you for providing it Quis.

I think Bishop Sanborn spoke on the topic of the Ressurection in his 2007 Easter sermon, a good reference for this topic I think. 

Reply
#16
(09-04-2009, 08:12 AM)Br. Pio-Francis T.O.S.F. Wrote: My apologies, the following quotation which you provided, I had not seen.  I will take it off of the site due to the fact that one could look at it in this light.  I thank you for providing it Quis.

I think Bishop Sanborn spoke on the topic of the Ressurection in his 2007 Easter sermon, a good reference for this topic I think. 

I think it is best to read the entire work before making comments on it, especially the sort you've been doing. Don't let facts get in the way again ;)
Reply
#17
(09-04-2009, 08:21 AM)Rosarium Wrote:
(09-04-2009, 08:12 AM)Br. Pio-Francis T.O.S.F. Wrote: My apologies, the following quotation which you provided, I had not seen.  I will take it off of the site due to the fact that one could look at it in this light.  I thank you for providing it Quis.

I think Bishop Sanborn spoke on the topic of the Ressurection in his 2007 Easter sermon, a good reference for this topic I think. 

I think it is best to read the entire work before making comments on it, especially the sort you've been doing. Don't let facts get in the way again ;)

I'd suggest that instead of reading and entire work it is possible tor read enough to just get a good sense of what is being said. As the OP has now admitted, he did not understand the context of the quote, but having seen the quote, reproduced it and it's interpreted meaning.


An open letter to Mr. Protomanni:

Most sedevecantists, wrong though I think they are in their beliefs, I have found to be well-meaning and thinking people. Here you seem to, instead of taking the time to critically analyze the material on which you base your belief, simply parrot men who are known for their misquoting of modern authors in order to suit their purposes. Unfortunately that quality has rubbed off here.

Additionally, I know that I don't appreciate having to be sent off-site, increasing your blog traffic (which amazingly has seen an exponential jump in the last few days). It is inconvenient for me to have to click on lots of links, then come back here and comment on something which should have been posted here if you wanted to discuss. It also smacks of self-promotion, not a desire to discuss the issues to find the truth of the matter, but your chance to give us a sermon, an authority you don't possess.

I had the same problem with Mr. Heiner doing that with the Bishop Williamson letters. There is no reason he couldn't post them here instead of sending us off-site.

I left the blogging world a while back, in fact I was one of the people in your blogging circle several years ago. My analysis of the situation was that such ventures, especially when we get the chance to write on issues concerning the faith, become too self-indulgent to be good for us. It reminded me of something that Gerry Matatics told me after he made his move toward Sedevacantism. He came to all the places where he had been to have a discussion, not trying to convince us of his position, but to explain himself and to explain why he would not be continuing his work in the same way, particularly in debating. He said that since in debates, the person promoting the Faith was at least seeming to speak for the Church, it was a position in which a man needed approbation from a bishop to do so.

My sense in quitting blogging was similar in that we have a set up in the Church where it is only men ordained to the Deaconate or higher who can preach and speak officially for the Church. My sense was that too much, blogging as an individual is not a method for producing a scholarly article on a subject in which the blogger has expertise, but instead to be a forum for him to preach when he has not permission from the Church to do so.

Quite simply, you don't have the authority from the Church to make juridical judgments of anyone, nor do you possess the power to debate as if you were speaking from the position of the defender of the faith. Here on a forum as such we are not to preach, instead we offer our opinion on a certain matter. In some cases when people have questions those of us with more expertise in an area provide an answer and that generates a discussion.

I would hope that you would step back from the activity and take some time to consider whether you are first working on your interior life before spending your efforts and time on such a flurry of activity. I know that has been a serious problem for me, and for many with the great zeal you clearly have. The active apostolate flows out from a good interior life. Too often, I and many others have made the mistake of trying to let activity substitute for a good interior life. My hope is that you're not doing the same here, but that's a self-analytical question you need to ask yourself.

Sincerely,

Andrew
Reply
#18
(09-04-2009, 08:58 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Additionally, I know that I don't appreciate having to be sent off-site, increasing your blog traffic (which amazingly has seen an exponential jump in the last few days). It is inconvenient for me to have to click on lots of links, then come back here and comment on something which should have been posted here if you wanted to discuss. It also smacks of self-promotion, not a desire to discuss the issues to find the truth of the matter, but your chance to give us a sermon, an authority you don't possess.
+1
Reply
#19
Same thing as last thread...Do you ever think about anything else...let's hear some of that instead

Reply
#20
(09-05-2009, 03:54 AM)Scipio_a Wrote: Same thing as last thread...Do you ever think about anything else...let's hear some of that instead

He's a sede troll, trying to boost his blog, which he has no authority to publish antway, eh?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)