This Fr. Z post made my "fraud radar" go off Fr. Z manipulates the Pope
#21
(03-29-2011, 07:30 PM)m.PR Wrote: BUT, this "Centristian" poster is completely unbearable. He prefers the NO to the TLM, but does not say it outright, instead choosing to cloak this message in knowledgeable-seeming posts. The most clear statement I've seen from him went something like this: "I am all for celebrating the Traditional Mass... I only wish the Paul VI Mass were the 'traditional' Mass." It is outrageous. I'll bet Father Z doesn't like him much either.

"Centristian" undermined the very position Fr. Z takes and in so doing aligned himself as being more attuned to the Holy Father's liturgical preferences.  And he was ultimately correct, but Fr. Z would lose a lot of trads if he made it known that the TLM replacing the Novus Ordo is going to be met with resistance by the same people allowing the use of the TLM.  (not that they'll be able to stop it. )

Quote:  I did read the post in question, and found nothing questionable about it. Father Z named the cardinals everyone else had been naming. I think the post is made in response to the people who think that there was never any threat to the TLM in the revised Instruction. I do believe there was a real threat, and completely understand the frustration with people who insist on denying it.

He pointed out correctly that most people in most parishes don't even know about Summorum Pontificum.  That makes the efforts of the clarification letter a bit futile or a tempest in a teapot in the larger context of the Church.  Fr. Z is leading trads to believe "this is it." in order to draw him into their confidence and distract from the Holy Father's liberal tendencies and outreaches.

Quote: If Father Z is so hyper-connected to the Vatican, then he knows whether the rumors were true; and if he knew they were false, why would he have asked for prayers for the pope? And why would he keep on making pro-Summorum Pontificum posts? I don't understand this particular conspiracy theory.

On it's face, Fr. Z is claiming that he knows how to play the Pope against the Cardinals.  Without him, essentially the Pope would be drooling while he attached his signature Paul VI-style to whatever the moderni day Bugnini wanna bes would place before him.  I don't buy it. I don't believe you have Fr. Z and his connections on one side and the liberal Cardinals on the other wrestling over the Pope.  I think they are all of the same mind and all interested in using public relations techniques instead of "Catholicism."  Centristian was undermining the factionalism that Fr. Z is proclaiming and essentially blowing the charade from the liberal end of it. 

Quote: Regarding Fr. Corapi, it should be obvious why Father Z won't mention him by name: the accusations against him concern his private life, and in polite company you only discuss such things by indirection.
The rumors on the cardinals, however, do not concern their private lives, but rather their professional lives, if you will.

You can't be serious. Fr. Corapi has public charges against him.  He's made a public statement. It was on EWTN news as well as a host of other outlets. But Fr. Z won't mention him by name and conversely, there are rumors about ecclesiastical crimes and misdemeanors and you think repeating the gossip and naming the Cardinals is licit? Even if true, it's detraction. 


Reply
#22
(03-29-2011, 07:30 PM)m.PR Wrote:
(03-29-2011, 12:42 AM)Gerard Wrote: [quote='Gerard' pid='727241' dateline='1301416241']
But I think it's more likely that Fr. Z, Levada and the Holy Father are providing form of media relations, and theater in order to manipulate trads and gain more confidence about their plans for the Church than trads would normally be wiling to give. JPII was the liberal Pope that convinced the conservatives that he was conservative,  B16 is the liberal Pope trying to convince trads that he's a trad at heart.  Both of them did it by allowing crazy liberal actions, talking conservative  talk and doing nothing to actually reverse the trends in the Church.

Ah, there it is.

Yes.  Spot on, Gerard.


Reply
#23
I'm not convinced that Father Z is manipulating an existing finite group.  I've noticed that in addition to the neo-cons who like the Latin Mass who have been following him for a long time, that there are quite a few neo-Cons who weren't friendly to the Immemorial Rite of the Mass who'll now at least darken the door of an Indult.

Moreover, I don't think you know just what the Pope's relationship is like with +Levada.  I've heard it was strained.  I keep coming back to the idea that Father Malachi Martin had that the Cardinals surrounding the Pope despise him, and you can sense it in the tone they take with regard to certain initiatives he would launch, and so forth when JP II was still in charge.  Now the Cardinals seem much more submissive, almost like Corgis and their disagreement with the Pope's agenda seems a lot less overt and simpering.  Of coruse, we do have +Schoenborn.... .

Reply
#24
(03-29-2011, 10:47 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote: I'm not convinced that Father Z is manipulating an existing finite group.  I've noticed that in addition to the neo-cons who like the Latin Mass who have been following him for a long time, that there are quite a few neo-Cons who weren't friendly to the Immemorial Rite of the Mass who'll now at least darken the door of an Indult.

Moreover, I don't think you know just what the Pope's relationship is like with +Levada.  I've heard it was strained.  I keep coming back to the idea that Father Malachi Martin had that the Cardinals surrounding the Pope despise him, and you can sense it in the tone they take with regard to certain initiatives he would launch, and so forth when JP II was still in charge.  Now the Cardinals seem much more submissive, almost like Corgis and their disagreement with the Pope's agenda seems a lot less overt and simpering.  Of coruse, we do have +Schoenborn.... .

HELP!!! Please explain what a Neo-Con is. I've been a Catholic for 69 years (since birth) & while I was "lost" when they took my Latin Mass away, somehow I endured during the 40 barren years (for me anyway), through God's grace ( until I finally got the TLM. back).  At my age I don't consider myself a "NEO" anything. :)
I'm sure not a "new Traditionalist", I would not take any of the "lay ministries" during the time when my only choice for Mass was the NO.  Sometimes when I found myself getting more than a little depressed or angry during the New Mass, I'd have to stay away from it for a while. There were/are no SSPX or Eastern Churches within 80 mis. (one way) of my home.......but when our new Bishop gave us the TLM. in my city.......I bolted & have never attended a NO. Mass since SP. was promulgated. So, surely I'm not a "neo-con" am I??


BTW. I do believe that the NO. is a valid Mass, I just don't think that it embraces the whole  of Catholicism.
Reply
#25
(04-02-2011, 10:21 AM)JoniCath Wrote: HELP!!! Please explain what a Neo-Con is. I've been a Catholic for 69 years (since birth) & while I was "lost" when they took my Latin Mass away, somehow I endured during the 40 barren years (for me anyway), through God's grace ( until I finally got the TLM. back).  At my age I don't consider myself a "NEO" anything. :)
I'm sure not a "new Traditionalist", I would not take any of the "lay ministries" during the time when my only choice for Mass was the NO.  Sometimes when I found myself getting more than a little depressed or angry during the New Mass, I'd have to stay away from it for a while. There were/are no SSPX or Eastern Churches within 80 mis. (one way) of my home.......but when our new Bishop gave us the TLM. in my city.......I bolted & have never attended a NO. Mass since SP. was promulgated. So, surely I'm not a "neo-con" am I??


BTW. I do believe that the NO. is a valid Mass, I just don't think that it embraces the whole  of Catholicism.

You sound sound like a Neo-Con/ Neo-Catholic. 

The Wikipedia description is pretty good.

Click on this link and you'll get a good, concise descrption. 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Catholi...ite_note-4[/

Reply
#26
I think it's worthwhile to expln why neoconism is undesireable.  It's usually tied in with the heresy like Americanism.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)