|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Oct 14, 2015 14:00:42 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2015 14:14:40 GMT
I completely forgot about this story. I meant to discuss it some time ago. Quite shocking that such a man was part of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. If even the successor to the Inquisition is being infiltrated, you know there is trouble in Rome.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Oct 15, 2015 12:22:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by rogerbuck on Oct 19, 2015 8:28:26 GMT
Well, this may prove controversial, but I'm pasting something in that has hit me strongly this morning - from Rorate Caeli …For reasons, I shall try to clarify, I'm posting more than is customary here. Also the bold emphasis is in the original from RC … I have two big issues here and would welcome help, particularly with the second. First issue: "a conversion of the Papacy" is HUGE … Moreover, it could be argued that it is precisely the opposite of the 35 year trajectory of St. JPII and BXVI which did indeed have certain re-centralising efforts. And I feel deep trust in that 35 year trajectory. Second issue is to do with the last paragraphs from Rorate Caeli. I usually try to keep silent on these things (although I do explode sometimes). Still, there is nothing at my blog about them. I feel obedience is central to Catholic faith and I try to maintain that. However, I constantly question myself as to where to draw the line. I don't want to go as far as RC personally and yet I am grateful their voice is out there, along with its acuity in noticing the "little" things it does … "a conversion of the Papacy." In this Synod, I am really asking myself, do I need to break my (strangled) silence more? So again my issue is where to draw the line. Can obedience and loyalty co-exist with outspoken criticism? If so, how? I always hated liberal talk about "faithful dissent". Felt like hypocrisy. But now I am genuinely seeking clarity. Grateful for any responses ...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Oct 20, 2015 13:51:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Oct 20, 2015 14:30:35 GMT
That is probably one of the most balanced pieces on the Synod that I have read so far, well done. I do think that some of the mooted changes in the Synod, like the relaxing of the annulment process, could certainly be problematic in the West where it is wide open to abuse, but I can understand that in the third-world, it is very difficult and expensive (thus putting it out of reach of the vast majority) to get an annulment that might otherwise be granted. Nevertheless, he has the authority to do that if he so wishes, and I am certainly not willing to go into schism over it. There is also the matter that the Holy Father might be more focused on the Third World (where the vast majority of practising Catholics are), and his comments need to be seen in that light. To him, the West is not the primary concern that it was to his two predecessors. Finally, I definitely think that there are echoes between Francis' overtures to Cardinal Kasper and the attempts of St. John Paul II and the future Pope Benedict to persuade Archbishop Levfebvre not to go ahead with the Econe consecrations. The German bishops have threatened to go into schism if the changes they desire are not granted, and the Pope's actions might be intended to give the impression that they are being listened to (not that I agree with this, but he knows more about the situation in Germany than any of us.
|
|
|
Post by rogerbuck on Oct 21, 2015 9:07:01 GMT
Thank you, Ranger. You say a lot and I can only manage a partial response right now.
But re …
Yes …
And amen.
What bothers me most in the traditionalist camp is the acidity and bitterness that characterises it along with bloated exaggerations.
Alas, however, I can no longer come to quite the same resolution as you Ranger - if I understand you correctly - of Francis as simply a fallible man making mistakes, including a perhaps too spontaneous capacity for speaking off the cuff.
For whilst I grant something like that is happening some of the time ("breeding like rabbits" is probably a good example), there are other times, where, honestly, it looks more than that to me
With difficulty in my heart, looking back over these last two years, sometimes it looks _calculated_ to me. Also some of the synod choices don't look like ignorant blunders to me, they too look calculated and very conscious of a goal that is not always transparent or openly declared.
So what do I do if that is my honest assessment of the situation after 2 and a half years?
One thing I do not do is to become bitter and bloated with antichrist accusations. But at the same time I can't quite go down your route either, which is tempting, because it is very obviously charitable on your part.
I am disturbed because I think I see factors that are not, to my mind, sufficiently acknowledged in your post and which, for me, must be taken into account.
But taking them into account does not mean "freaking out" and you are very , very right that this polarisation is not good.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Oct 21, 2015 9:27:45 GMT
Thank you for the very considered reply Roger, I greatly appreciate it.
When you say that there are other factors that concern you more than I am concerned, is there anything in particular? Is it the politicking and lack of transparency at the Synod or more than that?
I am, indeed, concerned about the outcome of the Synod. I guess what I was trying to say was that my great difficulty is that Catholics are being presented by Catholic opinion-makers, whether traditionalist or liberal or any shade in between with two narratives, and two narratives only that they may choose from: Francis as antichrist, or Francis as living saint (whether a liberal or conservative one), and there seems to be a pressure to conform to one 'camp' or another, rushing to judgement of either the Holy Father or of anyone who raises critical questions, which further polarises things. This 'acidity' as you so rightly put it is only weakening the Church.
I wouldn't say that my view of Pope Francis is entirely benign, but I've been trying to puzzle things through. The difficulties are compounded by the fact that I find that very little media is trustworthy; it either follows one narrative or another, obscuring truth for the sake of simple answers. I think perhaps my position is one of reserving judgement until after his papacy. I do think that many of his actions at the Synod are worrying. But I also find that he has said and done many things that have a very genuine Christian character, so to speak, which I find very difficult to reconcile with an ultimately negative view of him.
As I said, I have not read Evangelii Gaudium, but people close to me have and have the highest opinion of it as a manual for witnessing to the Gospel in an effective, loving, above all truthful manner.
I think that regarding the passage you quote that Rorate Caeli singles out, it's neither good nor bad in and of itself. I think that in this case, you might say that 'the devil is in the interpretation' to adapt a common phrase. If he means devolving the enforcement of doctrine to a local level, that could be disastrous in some individual cases, but might be necessary to prevent the exaggerated reliance upon the Papacy that I spoke of. If he means devolving the definition of doctrine to a local level, then we have schism.
My difficulty with Rorate is that they assume the worst interpretation is true. Without trying to be too biting or sarcastic, I would say that they are happy enough to devolve a lot of Petrine power to Econe. This worry about Peter's authority seems a little too selective for my tastes.
Regarding 'conversion' of the papacy, again, this could mean different things. We are all called to what was called 'conversio,' the conversion of the individual day by day towards God. I think that a development of positions of authority such as the papacy is not in and of itself bad; the papacy has changed greatly over the last two thousand years, and in many ways for the better (for instance, I think it is healthy for the Church that the Pope is no longer commander of a large military force).
So I wouldn't say that my approach is to not worry about Pope Francis. Rather my approach is to brace myself for the worst, try to understand the faith better, and hope and pray and work for the best.
I do think that we have relied too much on the papacy for too long in the West; understandable given the chaos, but as I said this lasts as long as there is a good, holy, capable man on the throne. I'm not saying that Francis isn't, but I am saying that there's precedent for having some very unholy men occupy the See of Peter.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 21, 2015 21:03:26 GMT
Agree with Ranger. I think Pope Francis's prudential judgement on the handling of the Synod can be called into question, but he is the Pope and I will give him the benefit of the doubt where possible. Meanwhile, Fr Brendan Hoban shows how much he believes in dialogue by calling for those wicked cardinals who dissent from Pope Francis (as interpreted by Fr Hoban) to be squelched without more ado. Satan rebuking sin comes to mind: www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2015/10/dissident-cardinals-unwittinglydo-the-church-some-service/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2015 21:39:20 GMT
Apparently some members of the clergy are being accused of dissent for simply raising concerns. Is Fr Brendan Hoban a liar, or just too stupid to realise what real dissent is? Which reminds me; some time back Ranger suggested something about a group that would descend on websites that attack the Church and faithful Catholics. Do you think this is what we should be doing with the Association of Heretics every time they release a deceitful article?
|
|
|
Post by rogerbuck on Oct 22, 2015 9:14:34 GMT
Another partial response for lack of time and the great difficulties presented here in being sensitive, obedient, fair … Will respond slightly out of order. I guess what I was trying to say was that my great difficulty is that Catholics are being presented by Catholic opinion-makers, whether traditionalist or liberal or any shade in between with two narratives, and two narratives only that they may choose from: Francis as antichrist, or Francis as living saint (whether a liberal or conservative one), and there seems to be a pressure to conform to one 'camp' or another, rushing to judgement of either the Holy Father or of anyone who raises critical questions, which further polarises things. This 'acidity' as you so rightly put it is only weakening the Church. Yes I hear this as a main point and agree about not going into polarised camps, particularly because I agree with what you also say here: I do think that many of his actions at the Synod are worrying. But I also find that he has said and done many things that have a very genuine Christian character, so to speak, which I find very difficult to reconcile with an ultimately negative view of him. As I said, I have not read Evangelii Gaudium, but people close to me have and have the highest opinion of it as a manual for witnessing to the Gospel in an effective, loving, above all truthful manner. I have not read it either, but am sure it contains much that comes from a very sincere heart. These camps as you rightly put it are so hard … I find myself recalling how even Malachi Martin [!] once described Blessed Paul VI as a man of "unimpeachable piety". I actually feel great fondness for Bl. Paul VI and much that he did, including his outreach to the poor and developing world. And yet obviously I see what he did in destroying the liturgy … my voice trails off. I do not want to impugn Blessed Paul VI and the very fact that I speak of my fondness for him will be enough for certain trads to write me off completely. These camps, these woeful camps. Truth is more complex than camps. When you say that there are other factors that concern you more than I am concerned, is there anything in particular? Is it the politicking and lack of transparency at the Synod or more than that? It is this and more. I think the 13 Cardinals letter is important here. My voice trails off … struggling. I wouldn't say that my view of Pope Francis is entirely benign, but I've been trying to puzzle things through. The difficulties are compounded by the fact that I find that very little media is trustworthy; it either follows one narrative or another, obscuring truth for the sake of simple answers. I think perhaps my position is one of reserving judgement until after his papacy. Yes, the media is problematic to say the least. I think one needs to read both sides and sift … I read John L Allen and Crux and I read Sandro Magister and Rorate Caeli. Something I observe here is that we now have Cardinals declaring things. I saw Pell recently basically endorse Pentin's thesis in his book Rigging of the Synod. Thus whilst I definitely respect you Ranger and also respect Hibernicus's wish to give the benefit of the doubt, I am struggling inside of myself to know what to do watching Pell and Burke. I note that in one of the few public comments our Pope Emeritus BXVI has made, he talked - last year around the synod - of the two "great cardinals" Pell and Burke. Can't easily find link now, but I assure you this quote is true. I think that regarding the passage you quote that Rorate Caeli singles out, it's neither good nor bad in and of itself. I think that in this case, you might say that 'the devil is in the interpretation' to adapt a common phrase. If he means devolving the enforcement of doctrine to a local level, that could be disastrous in some individual cases, but might be necessary to prevent the exaggerated reliance upon the Papacy that I spoke of. If he means devolving the definition of doctrine to a local level, then we have schism. I fear … I hope it is only my fear … that a tendency to the second is discernible. Ranger, Hibernicus … I don't know what to do either. I hope it will be evident that I am not "freaking out" but I would be lying if I did not admit to being gravely concerned. One small clue as to how to deal with these things for me lies in the title of my upcoming book The Gentle Traditionalist. I have tried to create a character who is not "freaking out", acidic … but one who is gravely concerned and is weeping rather than ranting. (To be clear: I don't go into Francis in that book apart from one line from a New Age character who thinks Francis is "cool", whereas all the other Popes were rigid and unconscious … unlike Deepak Chopra and other "teachers of higher consciousness" whom he admires.)
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Oct 23, 2015 9:03:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Oct 23, 2015 10:28:46 GMT
The final German Report is very nuanced. The German original is here and I can see it to be a document Cardinal Schönborn would sign off on. A few of the observations there are pertinent to discussions on marriage and the family. One relates to the present culture and the sad fact of the matter is there are many Catholic couples marrying in church, not always because of their parents, who don't have the first clue what sacramental marriage is about. This is not just a German-speaking problem - I think it is more acute in Ireland and other English-speaking cultures. This is a problem, but one needs to ask how the Church will deal with it: giving adult men and women courses in what they should have been doing through 15 or 16 years of Catholic education? This has been a problem for some time. Another relates to the family and the economy. And it is very true that the current globalised economy is not pro-marriage and family, in fact it is the opposite, and the intervention of certain multi-nationals in a recent referendum here underscores that point. Once again, the way to react is the encouragement of the social teaching of the Church (within the context of realistic economics). I think the document serves to illustrate the sad fact that a profoundly anti-life and anti-family exists without stating this goes hand in hand with a culture in transition from Christianity to Post-Christianity. It is a scary time to be alive, but positively it is a time when there is a huge potential for witness (I don't want to be so dramatic to give this last phrase in Greek). Though this document doesn't explicitly call for the type of measure many German bishops have called for, it doesn't seem to consider that to compromise the teaching of the Church will do more damage. We are dealing with all the hot issues here: insolubility of marriage, openess to life and the uniqueness of the relationship of a man and a woman. This mentality of changing the Church's "rules" fails to appreciate that they were many centuries in the building. I think the Pope could be a lot more circumspect too. I note as the Oireachtas passed the nefarious legislation sanction unions between people of the same sex which are to be called "marriage" and given the privileges of married people, Senator Cáit Keane (Fine Gael, previously PD) said to Senator Ronan Mullen that Pope Francis would react differently. I have a mind to write to Senator Keane telling her if she believes what she reads in the papers, she's going to come across as being very ignorant, as this reaction shows. Can anyone send her office Pope Francis' denunciation of similar legislation in Argentina when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires? Anyway, I digress, but one would wish that the Pope acted more like a chief than a chairman in these matters and outbursts like Cáit Keane's pale into insignificance beside Fr Brendan Hoban's attempt to co-opt the Pope to his way of thinking (or of not thinking). One asks how little of the liberal antics are about mercy and how much they are about accommodating themselves with the new order. Is this why some people have caricatured the ACPI as Fine Gael at prayer?
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Oct 23, 2015 17:06:15 GMT
Fine Gael maybe...at prayer, not so sure.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Oct 26, 2015 21:31:39 GMT
|
|