|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 11, 2014 20:20:04 GMT
RORATE CAELI's response to criticism of its anti-Tolkien post shows it at its worst IMHO rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/02/follow-up-on-tolkien.htmlEXTRACT Follow-up: on Tolkien The post including transcripts of the conferences first posted on Audio Sancto with a somewhat critical view of the value as Catholic literature of the mythological world created by traditional Catholic author J. R. R. Tolkien generated quite a bit of heat. The reaction from many quarters was stronger than might have been expected if we had posted a denial of an article of the Creed!...[DENIAL OF THE CREED WOULD BE UNAMBIGUOUS; YOU WILL HAVE MORE HEAT PRECISELY WHERE THERE IS ROOM FOR LEGITIMATE DEBATE -HIB] In a sense, even though I personally disagreed with much of what Father had to say, it seems to me that this bizarre overreaction [THE ORIGINAL POST ACCUSED TOLKIEN, AND BY IMPLICATION ALL ADMIRERS OF HIS WORK OF GNOSTICISM - I WOULD THINK ANYONE ACCUSED OF MATERIAL HERESY MIGHT RESPOND FORCEFULLY]validates much of his concern over a sacralization [WHAT EXACTLY DOES THAT MEAN IN THIS CONTEXT?]of texts which, as loved as they may be by many, are just a modern piece of entertaining fiction, and, let us be quite honest about it, regardless of the academic brilliance of the author, are not part of the canon of great literature of Christian Civilization. [DEFINED BY WHOM? IS HE SAYING THAT LITERATURE PRODUCED IN THE MODERN ERA CANNOT BY DEFINITION BE GREAT?] In any event, precisely because this does not involve an article of the faith, but a prudential judgment on which Catholics may reasonably disagree, we would be more than happy to post a rebuttal of the conferences from a traditional Catholic perspective, in case it is also authored by a traditional priest and is, of course, respectful towards his fellow man of the cloth. [SO ONLY A "TRADITIONAL PRIEST" IS ENTITLED TO RESPOND - NO OTHERS NEED APPLY, HOWEVER COGENT THEIR ARGUMENTS MAY BE - AND WHO DECIDES WHAT CONSTITUTES "RESPECT"? - HIB] Posted by New Catholic at 2/07/2014 12:21:00 AM END Here is a fairly convincing reply, but as its author is "only" a Novus Ordo priest, Rorate will ignore him: maryvictrix.com/2014/02/10/is-tolkiens-fantasy-gnostic/www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2014/02/another-take-down-of-that-dumb-hatchet-piece-on-tolkien.htmlmaryvictrix.com/2014/02/10/is-tolkiens-fantasy-gnostic/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2014 11:47:59 GMT
I don't have much to say but 2 things. 1) I know about these parallels between Catholicism and Tolkien's work, but I've also heard Tolkien apparently dismisses any connection between the two. 2) The entire argument seems to be taking on an extremely childish tone, with that priest supposedly bragging about the fact he uses his real name, and basically calling people cowards for being anonymous on the internet. I'm not sure what anonymity has to do with the argument at hand, and it seems a bit childish. Then again, I wasn't accused of heresy.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 12, 2014 20:11:12 GMT
I think it was Mark Shea and not the priest-blogger who attacks the trad priest for posting anonymously. I would say the argument stands or falls on its merits, but the fact that RORATE presents it as deriving strength from its author being a trad priest complicates matters.
Tolkien stated that his work was not to be read as an allegory (i.e. one-for-one correspondence) of Catholicism, but he also said that there were Catholic elements in it, though not explicitly intended. That is different from saying that it is positively unCatholic or anti-Catholic and should be formally condemned as heretical, which is what the accuser is saying. It would be quite legitimate for him IMHO to say that the search for Catholic subtexts in Tolkien's work can be overdone and that it has problematic aspects (the point that it has often appealed to racists - though Tolkien explicitly denounced this - and to neo-pagans and dopeheads would be quite legitimate here) but the accusation of systematic heresy, and the accuser's condemning it in terms which logically imply the condemnation of almost all imaginative literature (the critic-priest is quite correct in pointing out that much of the power of the NEw Testament derives from its power as a story, which is not incompatible with doctrinal truth). Anyone who knows the extensive use made of the "furniture" of Greco-Roman myth by Christian poets over many centuries will know it is just ridiculous to say that myth per se is incompatible with the true Faith. He might as well say that neo-classical churches are incompatible with Christianity because they are modelled on pagan temples (and there have been people at different times who have claimed exactly that).
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 24, 2014 21:19:56 GMT
A very odd post on RORATE CAELI apropos of the canonisation of Pope John Paul II. They seem to be suggesting that because St Celestine V though personally holy was a disaster as Pope, his canonisation should somehow be "re-examined". I don't see how it is possible to be less "traditional" than to suggest the retrospective de-canonisation of a saint who was formally canonised and has been revered as such for over 700 years. The suggestion that Bl. John Paul II was as big a disaster as Celestine (who lasted less than a year and made such blunders as appointing several people to the same vacancy because he said "Yes" to everyone who asked him and couldn't remember his previous actions) also suggests a certain lack of proportion which is sadly characteristic of RORATE CAELI. rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/04/editorial-note-what-pope-with-lousy.html
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Apr 24, 2014 21:27:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 13, 2014 21:16:12 GMT
Saw the April 2014 CHRISTIAN ORDER recently. Almost half of it is taken up with Part 3 of a long rant by Rod Pead on Pope Francis's first year in office, in which he engages in long denunciations of the Pope, whom he apparently does not allow to have a single good point (he accuses him of "false humility" and attention-seeking when he washes the feet of people in prisons, hostels etc - even if he thinks Pope Francis is mistaken in doing so he might at least assume his good faith until proved otherwise). Benedict XVI is denounced almost as ferociously as being no more than a Vatican II liberal, and Michael Davies is posthumously criticised for failing to see this; together with much denunciation of "neo-conservatives" and "papolatry", Mr Pead claims that authentic Catholic tradition had already been swept aside by 1978 and the conflict in the Church since then has simply been between different brands of Vatican II liberals. He talks about the Church and the Vatican being taken over by Freemasons, and quotes the "Secret Instruction of the Alta Vendita". So it seems nothing will satisfy Mr Pead except the retrospective erasure of Vatican II and all the post-Vatican II Popes. If I believed what Mr Pead believes I would be a sedevacantist and go knocking on the door of Bishop Williamson's bunker, but then logic does not seem to be Mr Pead's strongpoint.
Other lowlights of the paper include an article by a Latin American woman academic who actually met Pope Francis regularly at conferences when he was Cardinal Bergoglio, and thought he was an attention-seeker who agrees with whoever he is talking to irrespective of contradictions. Now I was willing to take this seriously because it was based on actual personal impressions [ADDENDUM; Just to clarify; the sort of thing I have in mind is her description from personal knowledge of the then-Archbishop Bergoglio arriving late for important meetings and explaining to everyone at some length that this was due to delays and other problems he encountered by using public transport; on which the writer comments that if using public transport hinders his proper duties as Archbishop he should consider whether using private transport in order to avoid these hindrances might not be a more appropriate expression of humility. That is certainly a reasonable view, though the author makes some suppositions about his real motives which are both unknowable and uncharitable -HIB] - and the writer does have a pro-life record (and a large family herself) and made some reasonable points such as the fact that spinsters of her acquaintance were hurt by Pope Francis saying "nuns should not be like spinsters with sour faces" (or whatever he said along those lines) but as I read on I noticed it denounced him for blessing "the pro-abortion feminists on the Plaza de Mayo". If this refers to the people I think it refers to, I presume he was not blessing them for their views but as people for whom God died, and who lost family members under the military junta. Then she declares that Pope Francis should have other priorities "when the world's governments are controlled by Freemasonry and the world's economy by Zionism". Blibber blibber blibber.
Another gem is a rant about St John XXIII's claiming divine inspiration for his idea of calling Vatican II, which seizes on his statement that when the idea first came to him in prayer he was afraid it might be a diabolic temptation to vainglory as indicating that this is exactly what it was. The writer seems to be completely ignorant of the SPIRITUAL EXERCISES - and John's spirituality was strongly Ignatian; when John says he was afraid the idea might come from the devil and tested it for a week in prayer, he is indicating that he was following St Ignatius' rules for the discernment of spirits. What a fine traditionalist who doesn't recognise that, and what a lack of Christian charity?
My old uncle who introduced me to Fr Crane's CHRISTIAN ORDER would be horrified at such rubbish. What a disaster.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 20, 2014 19:30:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on May 21, 2014 9:25:55 GMT
As far as I can tell, 'traditionalist Catholic' generally refers to three separate things:
1) An orthodox Catholic who abides by the dogmas and doctrines of the Church-- that is, not a heretic. 2) A 'conservative' Catholic who opposes modernizations and liberalizations that are not necessarily contrary to Church teaching, such as married clergy. 3) A Catholic who puts a very great importance on the Latin Mass, traditional devotions, the Rosary, Gothic architecture, and so forth.
Someone can be 1) without being 2) or 3). Someone can be 1) and 2) without being 3). (I would mostly put myself in this category, as I do appreciate tradition but I don't put the emphasis upon it that many others do, and I've never attended the EF. I don't appreciate classical music, though I wish I did, and I prefer brick churches to stone churches.) I think someone can even be 3) without being 1) or 2)...as seems to be the case with many traditionalists who zeal for orthodoxy has paradoxically led them to heresy. ("It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it".)
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 11, 2014 17:40:12 GMT
The satirical blogger Eccles offers his own version of three types of traditionalist: ecclesandbosco.blogspot.ie/2014/08/what-is-traditionalist.htmlEXTRACT nobody has ever read all the Vatican II documents (739 pages of fine print, as contrasted with 42 for Vatican I and 179 for Trent), although we are all waiting for the movie, which will star Stephen Fry as Hans Küng and Kermit the Frog as Basil Loftus. END The casting suggestion is inspired, since Stephen Fry must be one of the few people with a ego of such vast dimensions as Hans Kung's. Basil Loftus, for those not in the know, is an elderly liberal monsignor who has a column in the CATHOLIC TIMES; for regular criticism of his antics, see Joseph Shaw's LMS CHAIRMAN blog.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Aug 26, 2014 7:40:21 GMT
Eccles is funny, but traditionalists are often categorised according to affiliation: in short hand, seddie, pixie or Summorum Pontificum (used to be called Insult Mass trads - that's not a typo).
Might be more to the point to ask if traditionalism if focussed on the decade before the Council or sometime in the 19th century when ultramontism was at a high point; or are they actually connected with twenty centuries of tradition beginning with the Apostles and Fathers?
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 29, 2014 12:18:31 GMT
Who are (or is) the most extreme traditionalist sect (or writer, or individual) out there?
I realize it's hard to quantify since people go off the deep end in different directions.
Tradition in Action are the nuttiest I've encountered so far.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Sept 29, 2014 12:39:02 GMT
That's a question to which there is no easy answer. TIA are nutty, but there are many sedevacantist groups which are much, much worse.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 29, 2014 13:01:40 GMT
The mind boggles. (Can anything else boggle?)
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 29, 2014 18:09:01 GMT
Most Holy Family Monastery in America - there are only one or two "monks" and they devote much of their time to advocating a very rigorist form of Feeneyism and explaining at length why the SSPX and practically every other sedevacantist they can identify falls short of their standard for being Catholic. There are also some really really obsessive anti-semite groups on the fringes of trad-dom. You can't imagine what a REALLY obsessive anti-semite is like until you stumble across one of them.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 29, 2014 19:49:31 GMT
What I find worrying is how often my internet searches take me to the David Icke forum!!
I was listening to a programme on radio yesterday where the point was made that it was a minority of a minority (in terms of the Irish Volunteers) who carried the day after 1916. So I guess it happens. Catholic orthodoxy is a thousand times more clear-cut than most things in this world, but even at that, it can be bewilderingly fuzzy. Maybe the rad trads will be vindicated in some ways. I don't think so, though.
|
|