Fr. Z sees red and does black deeds against Bishop Williamson
#41
(12-16-2009, 11:21 PM)Servus_Maria Wrote:
(12-16-2009, 01:37 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote: There is nothing wrong with Catholics enjoying good food, wine, or coffee. We are not Puritans. Priests can enjoy these things too.

Just to clarify I didn't mean to be overly offensive about Father when I mentioned his food. I'm just uncomfortable with the idea of a priest eating such expensive food so regularly, even on Fridays and during lent. I'm sure the money and time that went into its preparation could have been better used.

Your attitude about what priests should not do, angers me. It reminds me of when Protestants complain of beautiful churches, though
I admit the comparison is not perfect.
Reply
#42
(12-16-2009, 11:44 PM)anthony Wrote: Gerard and Baskerville


(12-16-2009, 08:24 PM)Baskerville Wrote:
(12-16-2009, 02:20 PM)anthony Wrote:   There is no Newchurch,

Sure there is the Post Conciliar Church is not the same Church as that of pre 1965 in doctrine and liturgy it a whole new protestant denomination.

The post-conciliar Church is the Church of Christ. There is no other. The doctrine has not changed, and if it appears to have changed because of the personal errors of certain clergymen, then our eyes are not seeing the reality, but an illusion - a similar illusion to that experienced by the instigators of the Protestant Revolt. The Church's rites may have been tampered with, but with no affect on their validity and efficacy. We may choose to reject them. But it cannot be because they are positively wrong or evil; but merely because of how  and why they came to be, and what they might suggest with a little nudge in the wrong direction. Bishop Williamson did not voice his opinion in his way. Instead he robbed me of my trust in the promise of Christ with his dramatic speech. If he were less a sophist he might actually make friends with some we consider "neo-cons".

And no, I don't think the only John Calvins are the liberals. There are many trads who have a ****ed up view of the Church, doctrine, and who, as products of their age, have minds that are unhinged, off the rails, sick. At least +Williamson concedes the point that there is a grey area to some of what we can experience. Anyone who admits of a lighter or darker shade, and is shrill about it is no better than a certain raving German lunatic.

As for Fr. Z:  Do you know his station and work history? I do. I also am roughly aware of his schedule on most days. I don't stock the man, but do read his blog. He's not perfect, nor is he perfectly consistent. But who can be? No, really, I mean it? There is so much uncertainty. The only certainty is to cling to Holy Mother Church the best one knows how. I don't blame Bishop Williamson for being an SSPX bishop, nor do I blame Fr. Z for reading him with suspicion.

A lot of what you've written here makes sense. What I find most interesting is where you mentioned that the instigators of the Protestant revolt experienced a similar illusion to the illusion of today, in which it appears that doctrine has changed, but really hasn't, and that the problem has more to do with the personal errors of certain clergymen. I hadn't really seen it explained in that way before, so there's some good food for thought in that idea.
Reply
#43
(12-17-2009, 12:58 AM)sheep101 Wrote:
(12-16-2009, 11:21 PM)Servus_Maria Wrote:
(12-16-2009, 01:37 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote: There is nothing wrong with Catholics enjoying good food, wine, or coffee. We are not Puritans. Priests can enjoy these things too.

Just to clarify I didn't mean to be overly offensive about Father when I mentioned his food. I'm just uncomfortable with the idea of a priest eating such expensive food so regularly, even on Fridays and during lent. I'm sure the money and time that went into its preparation could have been better used.

Your attitude about what priests should not do, angers me. It reminds me of when Protestants complain of beautiful churches, though
I admit the comparison is not perfect.

The comparison doesn't work at all. Beautiful churches go to the glory of God and benefit the community by providing a space conductive to prayer. Eating lobster on Friday just totally negates the entire idea of fasting from red meat. Saying that an excess of anything is unhealthy to both our bodies and our souls isn't Puritanism, my friend.
Reply
#44
(12-16-2009, 08:49 PM)glgas Wrote:
(12-16-2009, 08:26 PM)Baskerville Wrote: Fr Z's a clown. I could never understand how a Priest can spend this much time blogging and playing on the net. Doesnt he offer Mass, pray the breviary and attend his other Priestly duties.

Who made you judge over living beings? Just curious.
Captain James T kirk of the USS Enterprise its my official job.

Also gassy its a fact not a judgement call.
Reply
#45
(12-16-2009, 11:44 PM)anthony Wrote: I don't blame Bishop Williamson for being an SSPX bishop, nor do I blame Fr. Z for reading him with suspicion.

To read Bishop Williamson with suspicion is to read the traditional teachings of the Church with suspicion. In all the things I've read from Bsp W he is firmly in line with trad teachings that go back thousands of years. The same can not be said of Fr. Z who leans modernist.

Reply
#46
(12-16-2009, 11:44 PM)anthony Wrote: Gerard and Baskerville

The post-conciliar Church is the Church of Christ. There is no other.

Agreed, but you can liken it to a house that has many, unlivable rooms in it.  It's not the house that was built.   It's been damages and is in need of repair, but some people don't think it does.  They like the ruins.  

Quote: The doctrine has not changed, and if it appears to have changed because of the personal errors of certain clergymen,

Popes are those clergymen.  They have refused to defend the Catholic faith clearly and in its entirety.  

Quote:then our eyes are not seeing the reality, but an illusion - a similar illusion to that experienced by the instigators of the Protestant Revolt.

Those revolutionaries did not have the courtesy to leave like the original Protestants.  They want to stay inside and change it.  Card. Bea related a story to Fr. Malachi Martin of Hans Kung and Schillebeeckxs having a conversation in his presence where they said that exact thing.  

Trads have long been calling that Illusion "The Great Facade" covering over the real face of the Church for years now.

Quote: The Church's rites may have been tampered with, but with no affect on their validity and efficacy. We may choose to reject them. But it cannot be because they are positively wrong or evil; but merely because of how  and why they came to be, and what they might suggest with a little nudge in the wrong direction. Bishop Williamson did not voice his opinion in his way. Instead he robbed me of my trust in the promise of Christ with his dramatic speech. If he were less a sophist he might actually make friends with some we consider "neo-cons".

Which tampering?  The Latin versions or the hundreds of vernacular versions?   The jury hasn't even been brought into the "for all, for many" debate.  What good is a valid Latin form when no one uses it and instead uses a doubtful vernacular?  

If Bishop Williamson robbed you of your trust in the promise of Christ, then you misunderstand the promise of Christ.  

Quote: And no, I don't think the only John Calvins are the liberals. There are many trads who have a ****ed up view of the Church, doctrine, and who, as products of their age, have minds that are unhinged, off the rails, sick. At least +Williamson concedes the point that there is a grey area to some of what we can experience. Anyone who admits of a lighter or darker shade, and is shrill about it is no better than a certain raving German lunatic.

Angela Merkel?  

Quote: As for Fr. Z:  Do you know his station and work history?

Some of it, from what he told Hugh Hewitt and what he's written himself.  

Quote: I do. I also am roughly aware of his schedule on most days. I don't stock the man, but do read his blog.

I read his blog as well.   His schedule is irrelevant to the honesty level of the content he posts.

Quote: He's not perfect, nor is he perfectly consistent. But who can be? No, really, I mean it?

As I pointed above,  Williamson is consistent.  Has been for decades.  Popes have come and gone, he's been a priest, turned to bishop, become famous and infamous and he's still the same.  God bless him for it.  

Quote:There is so much uncertainty.

That is the problem that is radiating out from the hierarchy.  One of the most interesting things is how people laud Pope Benedict for  "finally doing something" about several issues that plague the Church.   Well, who was it that ignored those things?  The last two major Popes.  They fostered the uncertainty in the Church and Paul VI actually vocalized it in his description of the Church engaging in "auto-demolition."   And the amazing thing is Paul VI still took steps to ensure that the destruction would continue after him by stacking the College of Cardinals as much as possible with moderates and progressives.  

Quote:  The only certainty is to cling to Holy Mother Church the best one knows how. I don't blame Bishop Williamson for being an SSPX bishop, nor do I blame Fr. Z for reading him with suspicion.

St. Paul gave us explicit instructions on how to handle things in rough times.  I blame Fr. Z for not being an honest broker of news and commentary.   He's engaging in manipulative propaganda and smear campaigns.   He's responsible for that.
Reply
#47
(12-17-2009, 01:59 AM)Gerard Wrote: [quote='anthony' pid='487180' dateline='1261021459']
Gerard and Baskerville

The post-conciliar Church is the Church of Christ. There is no other.

Agreed, but you can liken it to a house that has many, unlivable rooms in it.  It's not the house that was built.   It's been damages and is in need of repair, but some people don't think it does.  They like the ruins.  

[quote]

Thats a good way of putting it.
Reply
#48
(12-17-2009, 01:56 AM)Baskerville Wrote: To read Bishop Williamson with suspicion is to read the traditional teachings of the Church with suspicion. In all the things I've read from Bsp W he is firmly in line with trad teachings that go back thousands of years. The same can not be said of Fr. Z who leans modernist.

I believe the clergy that are in love with the Council,  have what I would call a "Prometheus Complex."  It seems like they took every prudent stop in the Council of Trent Catechism where the text ends and the writers say something along the lines of...."meditation on what we've stated will lead to new insights but they are best to not write about."  (I'm paraphrasing)  and they totally blew through all of those warning signs.  

But they seem convinced that traditional Catholicism does not evoke an intimacy with the Divine.  So, they are trying to prepackage in some of the most absurd ways an  experience of God.  It's like they are going to steal  the fire and bring it to Man.  The problem is Prometheus is a myth about a guy who succeeded in stealing from the gods and got severely punished.  These guys are trying to co-opt the real God's revelation of Himself to each of us and horn in on our own relatiionship with Him.  

It all stinks of Karl Rahner if I had to place it on one person's influence.   Pride of intellect with a very weak sense of faith, if anyone has ever read some of his "Prayers for a Lifetime"  you'll see what I mean.    
Reply
#49
(12-17-2009, 01:59 AM)Gerard Wrote:
(12-16-2009, 11:44 PM)anthony Wrote: The post-conciliar Church is the Church of Christ. There is no other.

Agreed, but you can liken it to a house that has many, unlivable rooms in it.  It's not the house that was built.   It's been damages and is in need of repair, but some people don't think it does.  They like the ruins.  

The house is damaged but still available shelter for everyone who needs God's presence.

The trads can not provide available shelter for 998 people out of 1000 Catholics.  There are no sufficient number of traditional priests.

This in itself would not be problem, but the rejection of the available shelter, the existing comprehensive Church is frightening, and induces the question: Do the represent the ONE Saint CATHOLIC=universal, for everyone and Apostolic Church?
Reply
#50
To go with this a bit. Though ur right traditional priests cannot provide for everyone at this time the shelter if the new church is more then broken. It suffers from a spiritual carbon monoxside. So the reason why trads will reject that shelter is its safer for our souls to be in a smaller one with proper spiritual ventalition then the ones of new church.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)