|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 22, 2009 11:48:30 GMT
Let me state once again that I do not believe there is anything miraculous about the Rathkeale tree stump, and I am increasingly inclined to think that its veneration should be expressly forbidden because of the scandal it gives. Nonetheless, if God wished to reveal himself through a tree stump he could do so, and mere decorum would not rule it out. To place too much emphasis on decorum leads to the rejection of the sacraments (like Ralph Waldo Emerson declaring he could no longer act as an Unitarian minister because he could not accept that such material objects as bread and wine could be sacred, even as a mere memorial) and to the rejection of the Incarnation, which is regarded as shocking by pure monotheists like Muslims and Jews precisely because they see it as being demeaning for God to mix himself up in the messy business of human life. Here is Christopher Howse (from the DAILY TELEGRAPH) commenting on this in a way which is a nice rejoinder to the view that Christianity was somehow uniquely misogynist. www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3615657/Sacred-mysteries.htmlA pagan presumption in the ancient world was that the female pudenda were indeed shameful, that women's insides were no better, and that women as a whole were second-rate. To this bundle of attitudes, a strand of heterodox thinkers, of a Gnostic, Manichaean, Docetist or otherwise flesh-hating tendency, added repulsion at the idea of God becoming incarnate in the messy entrails of a human being. A third-century Neoplatonist called Porphyry of Tyre recoiled from the idea that "the Divine entered the womb of the Virgin Mary, became a foetus, was born and wrapped in swaddling clothes, full of blood of the membrane, bile and other things". By contrast, the good St Hilary (315-67), after whom the university Hilary term is named, while recognising the popular distaste for things intestinal, is full of praises that God the Son, "the invisible Image of God, did not scorn the shame that marks the beginnings of human life". To be human is to be both dignified and undignified; the possibility of one involves the other.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Jul 23, 2009 13:56:24 GMT
Still waiting for an example of an object that is to be considered supernatural in origin, to use as a control for this conversation, and thusly the criteria by which we are asserting one is and one is not supernatural in origin.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 24, 2009 10:55:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Jul 27, 2009 7:53:46 GMT
Nope I am not looking for a link, I am looking for the answer of people on HERE.
What objects do people on HERE think are supernatural? By what Criteria do you establish this? And then following from that which of these criteria has the tree stump failed to meet in your eyes?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 27, 2009 12:32:41 GMT
Why is Hazelireland not interested in reading and discussing a detailed exposition of the subject by an expert? Pray do tell.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Jul 28, 2009 7:03:06 GMT
So you are not giving me your definition or opinion on the matter. Fine. Actually expected you not to be able to, truth be told.
This is YOUR opinion. I wanted to know how you came to YOUR opinion and how, in contrast you have come to the opposite opinion about any other objects that you may hold to be supernatural. By what criteria are you judging each object presented to you for your opinion? Is it just purely subjective in that you think the tree stump isnt supernatural for the reason that.... well.... that you say so and QED be damned?
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Aug 1, 2009 11:57:55 GMT
I prefer to address myself to the moderator in the same way that in a debate it is usual to address oneself to the chair (I was in a debating society at university). The idea is that you are addressing yourself to the whole audience rather than to the person you are responding to, and it is supposed to give a certain formality and stop things from getting too personal. It doesn't seem to have that effect here perhaps we can get a ruling from our moderator on the subject? Well, whether its your intention or not, this method of communicating on the board comes accross to me as quite rude. Its as if you are talking about someone rather than to them personally. Its up to you to continue in this manner if you see fit, but I just wish to make the point that I find this writing style rather off putting and that it detracts from the concept of talking to each other and raher transforms the conversation to a level where people are talking about each other. However, I've made my point and I'll move on........
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 18, 2009 12:42:04 GMT
The SSPX in Britain is working with Fr. Gruner. Extract from their Superior's letter on Ignis Ardens. Birds of a feather... z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=301&st=15lastFather Nicholas Gruner, world-renowned promoter of the message of Fatima, has just recently offered to kindly give some conferences on Fatima in the context of our Rosary Crusade when visiting the UK this month. Please consult the details found elsewhere in this newsletter for the details of talks scheduled at Saint Michael’s School and Saint Joseph’s Church on 19th and 20th September respectively.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Sept 18, 2009 14:02:09 GMT
Read the pixie letter re: Fr Gruner. The whole letter doesn't give much confidence re: reconciliation with Rome.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 10, 2009 13:33:37 GMT
Word is that a group led by alleged visionaries in Cookstown, Co. Tyrone, calling themselvesthe House of Prayer, are now denouncing the present Pope as Antichrist and a tool of the Devil. Nice example of how such groups tend to go off the rails. I may add it is more than usually demented - I can understand how the normal style of sedevacantist could claim there has been no real Pope since Pius XII or John XXIII (I'm not saying they are correct - I'm saying that given the scale of changes in the Church I could understand how someone would think it) but I cannot see how someone who accepts John Paul II as Pope could then refuse to accept Benedict XVI, given their closeness. Of course this is really about the deluded followers of these visionaries cutting themselves off, in best cultic style, from any source of spiritual guidance which might challenge their prophecy claims. I believe this group is one of the ones with whom the unfortunate Fr. McGinnity was involved before Christina Gallagher got her claws into him. As an antidote, readers may be interested in this blog entry on the Irish lefty blog SPLINTERED SUNRISE, in which the blogger argues that while disagreeing with Pope Benedict's views he thinks the media have not given him due credit as a reformer and restorer of church discipline. splinteredsunrise.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/st-alfonzos-pancake-breakfast/EXTRACT If there’s one thing I find fascinating about Pope Benny, it’s not his theology – although his writings are impressively crunchy, and his book on Jesus in particular is well worth your time – but how he’s developed his own political style since taking over as Pontifex Maximus. JP2’s rock ‘n’ roll papacy was always going to be a hard act to follow, and not a great deal was expected of Benedict, partly because of his natural reserve and partly because he’d spent so long holed up at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith acting as JP2’s theological enforcer. Those of us who take an interest in these things may have noticed that, while Wojty³a was rooted in a very Polish mystical tradition – which reminds us that Catholic Poles are not as far removed from Orthodox Russians as they might like to think – Ratzinger’s background was firmly in the German rationalist school. But like I say, that’s a matter for theology aficionados. Over the last few years, though, we’ve got a better idea of Benny as a political operator. This doesn’t always come through in media coverage – especially in Britain, where Catholicism usually only features in the news in relation to abortion, an issue that’s infested by Catholics pretending not to be Catholics (the ProLife Alliance) and non-Catholics pretending to be Catholics (‘Catholics for Choice’). Church politics as such doesn’t get much intelligent coverage, which is perhaps why Benny’s establishing himself as a reformer has gone largely unremarked. More important, though, is a conceptual fallacy whereby most commentators equate reformism with liberal reformism. It seems impossible to grasp that one can be theologically orthodox – and if you aren’t theologically orthodox, you won’t get to be Pope in the first place – and still be a reformist. In fact, Benedict has racked up quite an impressive track record of cracking down on malfeasances in the Church although, in his characteristic style, he isn’t very ostentatious about it. EXTRACT ENDS
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Nov 20, 2009 22:13:01 GMT
If there’s one thing I find fascinating about Pope Benny, it’s not his theology – although his writings are impressively crunchy, and his book on Jesus in particular is well worth your time – but how he’s developed his own political style since taking over as Pontifex Maximus. JP2’s rock ‘n’ roll papacy was always going to be a hard act to follow, and not a great deal was expected of Benedict, partly because of his natural reserve and partly because he’d spent so long holed up at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith acting as JP2’s theological enforcer. Those of us who take an interest in these things may have noticed that, while Wojty³a was rooted in a very Polish mystical tradition – which reminds us that Catholic Poles are not as far removed from Orthodox Russians as they might like to think – Ratzinger’s background was firmly in the German rationalist school. But like I say, that’s a matter for theology aficionados. Over the last few years, though, we’ve got a better idea of Benny as a political operator. This doesn’t always come through in media coverage – especially in Britain, where Catholicism usually only features in the news in relation to abortion, an issue that’s infested by Catholics pretending not to be Catholics (the ProLife Alliance) and non-Catholics pretending to be Catholics (‘Catholics for Choice’). Church politics as such doesn’t get much intelligent coverage, which is perhaps why Benny’s establishing himself as a reformer has gone largely unremarked. More important, though, is a conceptual fallacy whereby most commentators equate reformism with liberal reformism. It seems impossible to grasp that one can be theologically orthodox – and if you aren’t theologically orthodox, you won’t get to be Pope in the first place – and still be a reformist. In fact, Benedict has racked up quite an impressive track record of cracking down on malfeasances in the Church although, in his characteristic style, he isn’t very ostentatious about it. Hibernicus, your post deserves a detailed response. But my immediate reaction is to join you in cheering for and rejoicing in this unexpectedly wonderful Pope.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 17, 2009 18:07:22 GMT
Michael G, I'm afraid you have misread my post. The words you reproduce are not mine; they come from a left-wing blogger on the SPLINTERED SUNRISE blog who regards himself as ex-catholic but thinks our pope is doing a much better job than he is given credit for. I admit that I have never quite got the hang of how the quote function works (as Hazelireland frequntly complains) but I did put EXTRACT at the beginning and EXTRACT ENDS at the end. I suspect the blogger's contrast between the eastern mystic John Paul II and the German rationalist Benedict is a bit overdone - the current Pope's patristic interests would mean he would have more in common with the Orthodox than this suggests.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 8, 2010 12:23:13 GMT
Anyone familiar with the group known as Opus Angelorum? A day or two back the BBC reported the vatican had formally censured them: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11699849According to Fr Z and his contributors, who seem likely to be more accurate, the BBC got things in a twist. The Vatican was condemining a splinter group who continue to support some of the founder's dodgy private revelations, but the main group have acceded to the Vatican's reform demands and the statement was actually to affirm that this group (as distinct from the defectors) are orthodox and can safely be allowed to operate in dioceses. This is a reminder not to believe all you read on the BBC. Does anyone else on this board know anything about Opus Angelorum? Do they have any members/followers in Ireland? They originated in the Austrian Tyrol. wdtprs.com/blog/2010/11/opus-angelorum-cleared/#commentsElizabeth D says: 7 November 2010 at 8:23 pm There was an article recently on Zenit that focused on the warning about the expelled members who were continuing to spread false teaching. It is my understanding that Opus Angelorum really did have its origins in genuinely eyebrow raising false private revelations (in my opinion there is an urgent need today for the teaching of St John of the Cross on detachment from private revelations). To shortcut the process of forming a religious order, Opus Angelorum took over the ancient order of the Canons Regular of the Holy Cross, which had only one living member or something like that. After they drew attention for heretical ideas about angels, thanks be to God they accepted correction and reformed their theology and now from all accounts they are good now. I think they’re a success story.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Nov 8, 2010 21:11:22 GMT
I am familiar with Opus Angelorum, also known as the Order of the Cross. My reaction to Hibernicus'es last post is to say I would be very disappointed if the BBC was wrong and Father was right. I would like to movement placed under long term apostolic visitation, leading to sanctions against them up to and including suppression and I am extremely uneasy about the manner that the international traditional movement, particularly the Institute of Christ the King, are courting the Kazakh auxilliary bishop Athanasius Schneider who is a member of theirs.
They have some contacts in Ireland. My advice is, if the most optimistic posters on Father Zuhlsdorf's blog are right, give Opus Angelorum the wide berth.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 9, 2010 11:02:04 GMT
It seems Fr. Z's posters are correct and the BBC was mistaken. Here is a link to the Vatican statement which clearly differentiates between the main group and the defectors. How does the supervision by a delegate as described in the extract below differ from long term apostolic visitation? EXTRACT In essence, these two documents stated that, in promoting devotion to the Holy Angels, the members of the Opus Angelorum were to follow the doctrine of the Church and the teaching of the Church Fathers and Doctors. In particular, the members were not to make use of the "names" of angels derived from the alleged private revelations attributed to Mrs. Gabriele Bitterlich and they were not to teach, spread or make use of the theories originating from these alleged revelations. Furthermore, they were reminded of the duty to follow strictly all liturgical laws, in particular those relating to the Holy Eucharist. The Decree of 1992 entrusted the implementation of these measures to a delegate named by the Holy See and possessing special faculties; he was also given the task of regularising the relationship between the Opus Angelorum and the Order of Canons Regular of the Holy Cross. In the years that followed, the delegate, Fr. Benoit Duroux O.P., successfully completed the work entrusted to him. Today, thanks to the obedience of its members, the Opus Angelorum can be considered to be living loyally and serenely in conformity with the doctrine of the Church and with canonical and liturgical law. On 13 March 2010, given the advanced age of Fr. Duroux, Fr. Daniel Ols O.P. was named delegate, with the same powers as described in the Decree of 1992... END OF EXTRACT press.catholica.va/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/c4_en.htm
|
|