Fr. Z sees red and does black deeds against Bishop Williamson
#61
And thanks for those who've mentioned the "cult of personality" around various clergymen, which personally drives me nuts. It's as if there's only a few priests/ bishops in existence when you read through this forum sometimes, and frankly I (and many others, I'm guessing) don't like most of them. It gives an unbalanced view of what's really going on in the Church - as if it all boils down to these few people with fan clubs.
Reply
#62
(12-18-2009, 09:46 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(12-18-2009, 02:47 PM)Meg Wrote: Augstine Baker wrote:

"If more bishops stood up for the faith like Bishop Williamson, I'll bet all of those problems we're facing now would be considerably less important......."


I agree with what you wrote here, and though I'm going off topic here,  I'd like to point out that it's not always the Catholic faith that Bp. Williamson stands up for. And for me, that's a huge problem. It's been a problem for the SSPX, too. That other thing that he stands up for is Revisionism, which is more ecumenical than specifically Catholic. It's an ecumenical movement. He spends time with non-Catholics in this endeavor. And some of these non-Catholics are certifiable nutbars. IMO.

His issues with revisionism touch on a problem which does indeed involve the Church and it's the problem with relativism.  As long as people are going to rule these discussions by raw emotionalism and hollywood versions of reality, the Church and souls are in danger, because that's what the Church is; the Church is real and true.


If we're going to judge the truth according to people's emotional responses to things, I can think of no other course we could be on than to Hell itself.

How so? The response definitely involved a lot of emotion, probably too much, but revisionism has nothing to do with relativism. One is a matter of history and one is a matter of theology.
Reply
#63
(12-18-2009, 02:30 PM)Dust Wrote: My point, Kakhur, was that Baskerville (and others here and at other times) seemed offended by anyone doubting +Williamson on anything... I know he has a personality cult going (as do many others, including Fr. Z as I am now discovering) and was warning against it as a matter of principle. 

No, it's not that at all.  It's not a matter of being offended by people disagreeing with Bishop Williamson, it's the offensive manner in which they attack him.  Is it a characteristic of a cult of personality to actually think about someone's point of view and either agree with it or disagree with it on its merits? 

If there is any cult of personality regarding the Bishop, it is occupied the plethora of feeble-minded haters who think tossing a few insults, make a few mischaracterizations and avoid an actual thoughtful debate or discussion. 

My whole point in putting up this thread is to show that Fr. Z is a member of the cult of personality against Bishop Williamson. 

Quote: While I like and agree with Williamson in some respects, and have a great admiration for his determination and spine, I always thought he mixed Faith and his personal opinion a little too much in a way that tended to make opinion look like dogma in some people's eyes.  No distinction was made that he was talking about the bishop's writings on Faith only.  Maybe that was implied by the whole nature of the thread, and the particular writing of his that started all this.  If that was the case, I apologize.

I think an examination of Williamson's text proves that he is not speaking as if he's proclaiming dogma.  He's exercising the liberty that the Church allows on the matter of "intention" until the issue is settled, which will be a good sign that we are coming out of the crisis. 

Quote: It just seemed that this whole thread was turning into (or judging by the title, which was amusing but less than kind, maybe started out as) a big Williamson cult get together, angrily ripping on some priest who read something he wrote and called him out on some potential trouble spots. 

No.  This is a pattern on the part of Fr. Z.  He doesn't call people out on the substance of what they wrote.  He mischaracterizes as he did with Williamson's defense of the validity of the form of the rites and then spins it to seem as if Williamson is doing just the opposite.  Then he whines about the "tone" of the people that don't fall for his schtick. 

That would be like Fr. Z writing a brief definition on Transubstantiation carried over from a previous letter and someone commenting, "Oh my.  I haven't read his previous letter but I hope he's not denying the Real Presence of Our Lord. "

Quote: Going just off what was written in this one letter, father's comments did not seem all that out of place.  Fr. Z obviously disagrees with the SSPX, and thus he's not a member, but I don't hold that against him.

Fr. Z is intellectually dishonest.  He wants to keep it along the lines of, "the SSPX consecrated, therefore, they are excommunicated"  He won't admit that the Church has actual guidelines and teachings on the validity of excommunications,  he won't address St. Thomas' teaching on perfect, true and false obedience.  But he rails on an on about "disobedience"  In fact, "servility" the very word used by St. Thomas to describe false obedience is a "buzz word" for Fr. Z in which he launches into attacks against any of the poor, angry, bitter followers of Bishop Williamson use to "attack" the Holy Father, (who can never be wrong, no matter what) and to bring up impeccability and creeping infallibility is just another example of "This is what Pope Benedict is up against."  As if Fr. Z is a friend of the Holy Father as Pope or a friend to the Catholic Church by promoting ignorance.  The contrary is true Fr. Z is an enabler of modernist propaganda.  He's a salesman for the impeccability of the Holy Father and his predecessors and he tries to sell the crisis in the Church as a cosmetic problem caused by a few bad apples who got carried away.  No responsibility goes to the Popes during that period.  And opposing the Pope when it gets like that, is not "the last thing a Catholic should do.'  A Catholic should never do it according to him. 



Quote: It also seemed that no one else here would ever call anyone out on it. 

You'd have to argue for its existence first.  Your impressions of the cult of personality may actually be just a consensus of opinions based on the same arguments.  Williamson comes to  his conclusions from Catholic premises.  The  problem for the anti-Williamson peronsality cult is that they have a tough mountain to climb when Willamson's positions are built on solidy philosophy and solid observation and clear logic. 

But conceding points is not their style.  They are outcome oriented, they don't want Williamson's conclusions, they don't want Catholic premises, so they resort to distraction and ad hominems. 

Like Chesterton described G. Bernard Shaw in Heretics (ironically) they are all looking to something that has never existed and cannot exist.  If they can just "implement the Council correctly" it will be the Utopia they have imagined.  They are just like the Communists and the Atheists and the Secularists in this regard.  If something true gets in the way of their Utopia, they have to liquidate it, and the morality of the tactics used is justified by the allure of the Utopian outcome. 

Reply
#64
(12-18-2009, 11:23 PM)Servus_Maria Wrote:
(12-18-2009, 09:46 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(12-18-2009, 02:47 PM)Meg Wrote: Augstine Baker wrote:

"If more bishops stood up for the faith like Bishop Williamson, I'll bet all of those problems we're facing now would be considerably less important......."


I agree with what you wrote here, and though I'm going off topic here,  I'd like to point out that it's not always the Catholic faith that Bp. Williamson stands up for. And for me, that's a huge problem. It's been a problem for the SSPX, too. That other thing that he stands up for is Revisionism, which is more ecumenical than specifically Catholic. It's an ecumenical movement. He spends time with non-Catholics in this endeavor. And some of these non-Catholics are certifiable nutbars. IMO.

His issues with revisionism touch on a problem which does indeed involve the Church and it's the problem with relativism.  As long as people are going to rule these discussions by raw emotionalism and hollywood versions of reality, the Church and souls are in danger, because that's what the Church is; the Church is real and true.


If we're going to judge the truth according to people's emotional responses to things, I can think of no other course we could be on than to Hell itself.

How so? The response definitely involved a lot of emotion, probably too much, but revisionism has nothing to do with relativism. One is a matter of history and one is a matter of theology.

History is concerned with the Truth, and if the case of those who are opposed to discussing the "Shoa" is so certain, then why are they all so eager to cast anyone who questions it in the worst possible lght, as if they were the devil incarnate?
Reply
#65
That is an excellent question.  It applies to all other cases of questioning textbook material as well.
Reply
#66
(12-17-2009, 01:45 AM)Servus_Maria Wrote:
(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.

I suppose it was the "holier than thou" attitude from you that I picked up that bothered me. Is it really a big deal if Father decides to have
a nice meal on Friday? Should that even be brought up with all the other significant problems in the church these days? It seems to me that you were actively looking for faults in the good priest, are you an accuser? Picking on Father because he has a nice meal on Fridays is petty.

"I'm sure the money and time that went into its preparation could have been better used."

Acts
Chapter 5

4 Whilst it remained, did it not remain to thee? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power? DR

While it remained unsold, did it not remain yours? And when it was sold, was it not still under your control? Why did you contrive this deed? You have lied not to human beings, but to God." NAB
Reply
#67
Father Z is also encouraging the purchase of an Angelus Press book on Liturgy...

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/12/intriguin...cal-study/
Reply
#68
Vox and I like the birdcam.  We sent a few bucks for bird food actually.  There is nothing wrong with priests having 3 course meals and fine wine if they haven't taken a vow of poverty.  Criticizing clergy for having something nice is a Protestant notion.

As far as cult of personality, generally bad, but better a priest than a layman like Hahn, etc.

As far as the SSPX and Bp. W go, Fr. Z is dead wrong, and I hope he comes to realize this someday.

He's a human like anyone else and makes mistakes.  I find him to be good-willed (except about the SSPX) and like to read his blog.

Reply
#69
My 2 centavos.

I have not read Fr. Z in depth to form a good opinion.  However, from what I gather from the discussions I see that Fr. Z is somewhat like "Fr. M" of Traditio, same wavelength but on opposite sides of the spectrum:  malicious attacks on the SSPX, and on Bp. Williamson particularly.  Perhaps I am wrong, and apologies are in ordsr.  Gerard has some very valid points and I agree with these.

Btw, Bp. Williamson confirmed my second son.  Perhaps that makes me biased?
Reply
#70
(12-19-2009, 01:13 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(12-18-2009, 11:23 PM)Servus_Maria Wrote:
(12-18-2009, 09:46 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(12-18-2009, 02:47 PM)Meg Wrote: Augstine Baker wrote:

"If more bishops stood up for the faith like Bishop Williamson, I'll bet all of those problems we're facing now would be considerably less important......."


I agree with what you wrote here, and though I'm going off topic here,  I'd like to point out that it's not always the Catholic faith that Bp. Williamson stands up for. And for me, that's a huge problem. It's been a problem for the SSPX, too. That other thing that he stands up for is Revisionism, which is more ecumenical than specifically Catholic. It's an ecumenical movement. He spends time with non-Catholics in this endeavor. And some of these non-Catholics are certifiable nutbars. IMO.

His issues with revisionism touch on a problem which does indeed involve the Church and it's the problem with relativism.  As long as people are going to rule these discussions by raw emotionalism and hollywood versions of reality, the Church and souls are in danger, because that's what the Church is; the Church is real and true.


If we're going to judge the truth according to people's emotional responses to things, I can think of no other course we could be on than to Hell itself.

How so? The response definitely involved a lot of emotion, probably too much, but revisionism has nothing to do with relativism. One is a matter of history and one is a matter of theology.

History is concerned with the Truth, and if the case of those who are opposed to discussing the "Shoa" is so certain, then why are they all so eager to cast anyone who questions it in the worst possible lght, as if they were the devil incarnate?

When you say relativism are you talking about religious indifferentism and moral relativism? If so I don't see what the Holocaust has to do with any of that.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)