|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 25, 2012 10:25:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 25, 2012 21:57:46 GMT
Another interesting thought occurs to me. Fr Gerard McGinnity and Micheal Ledwith may have been opponents, but they have both ended up associated with alleged prophetesses who seem to be driven (at least in part) by anger and resentment at their impoverished early lives. Both are equally credible IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Mar 5, 2013 15:12:18 GMT
Very similar. Father McGinnity was portrayed as a hero figure in relation to the standoff with the former Mgr Ledwith. That's why he rallies for Christina Gallagher with impunity. However, people I know closer to the situation tell me it was far black and white.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 18, 2013 22:08:58 GMT
Interesting blogpost by Fr Longenecker on how cult-like behaviours develop within religious groups, with heated combox discussion. His statement that the traditional parish system is the antidote to this because it resists the tendency to form small communities of the pure is worrying because of (a) the strong currents in the church, both "conservative" and "liberal" who believe the key to evangelisation lies in replacing a dying parish system with new communities of the highly-committed (b) the tendency in recent decades for parishes to become less territorially-based and more ideologically-based. www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2013/04/cults-and-common-sense.html
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Apr 19, 2013 9:34:22 GMT
Could you say that the reason why the groups of the highly committed are emerging is because the local church don't know how to deal with them?
As such, the most committed are also the most vulnerable to cults.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 19, 2013 22:41:15 GMT
You could argue that that has always been the case - Fr Longenecker's article (or at least the comboxers) points out that the dividing line between cult and non-cult can be very fine; both the Ignatian and Benedictine traditions could be developed in cult-like directions. Macaulay's remark that if Joanna Southcott had been born a Catholic she might have become an honoured religious foundress, and that if Teresa of Avila had been born a Protestant she might have ended up as prophetess of a little sect, has a certain amount of truth in it, but it shouldn't obscure the fact that Catholicism as well as Protestantism can produce dotty little sects (and sometimes these had genuine potential but were mishandled by church authorities).
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 23, 2013 20:34:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 15, 2013 17:13:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 17, 2013 21:50:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 18, 2014 19:49:59 GMT
Word on the web (google PAul Kramer sedevacantist) is that Fr Paul Kramer of Fatima Crusader, who has been spending a fair bit of time in Ireland in recent years, has now declared that he thinks Pope Francis's views on the continued validity of the Old Covenant amount to heresy. Fr Kramer is claiming that Benedict XVI is still Pope, rather than taking up any of the better-known sedevacantist theories. (As more logical sedes have pointed out, this position falls foul of the minor detail that the Pope Emeritus himself recognises Pope Francis as Pope.) Of course, as those familiar with Fr Kramer's writings with their long history of sneering at Popes, are well aware, Fr KRamer has only ever recognised one Pope, namely Kramer I.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jan 19, 2014 12:20:14 GMT
Word on the web (google PAul Kramer sedevacantist) is that Fr Paul Kramer of Fatima Crusader, who has been spending a fair bit of time in Ireland in recent years, has now declared that he thinks Pope Francis's views on the continued validity of the Old Covenant amount to heresy. Fr Kramer is claiming that Benedict XVI is still Pope, rather than taking up any of the better-known sedevacantist theories. (As more logical sedes have pointed out, this position falls foul of the minor detail that the Pope Emeritus himself recognises Pope Francis as Pope.) Of course, as those familiar with Fr Kramer's writings with their long history of sneering at Popes, are well aware, Fr KRamer has only ever recognised one Pope, namely Kramer I. Hib, I wonder if saying that Fr Kramer only recognises himself as Pope might be a little harsh, misguided though his position undoubtedly is. It seems very strange to claim that BXVI is still Pope on one hand, and on the other call him a heretic. BTW, apologies for my prolonged absence over the last few months. It's good to be back.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 19, 2014 16:11:17 GMT
Welcome back. My limited contact with Fr Kramer's writings suggests that he always starts from the point that his definition of what it is to be Catholic is self-evident, and that defenders of the post-Vatican II Popes must have the burden of proof placed on them if they disagree with him; he also habitually refers to "Wojytla" and "Ratzinger" even in the context of their Papal functions. I don't think it's too exaggerated to say that this amounts to treating himself as Pope. The hardcore sedes at Novus Ordo Watch, who refer to Kramer as "Fr" Kramer because he was ordained using the Novus Ordo rite, have made the interesting point that this may disrupt Kramer's longstanding relationship with Fr Gruner of the FATIMA CRUSADER - since the whole Grunerite methodology presupposes that the current Pope is the real Pope and therefore could perform the echt-Consecration if he so wished; if the Grunerites became sedevacantists they would need a credible alternative Pope and these are in short supply (as distinct from the incredible variety, who are less scarce).
|
|
|
Post by rogerbuck on Jan 28, 2014 11:29:49 GMT
BTW, apologies for my prolonged absence over the last few months. It's good to be back. I am truly glad to see you back Young Ireland - and also hope to come back more here myself.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 16, 2016 23:30:45 GMT
Have been reading Joseph P Laycock THE SEER OF BAYSIDE: VERONICA LUEKEN AND THE STRUGGLE TO DEFINE CATHOLICISM (Oxford UP, 2015). This is very much a piece of participant-observer study devoted to expounding how the Baysiders see the world and how their movement developed, rather than a detached assessment (the numerous volumes of Bayside Prophecies are not systematically analysed, though various themes in them are related to the concerns of the 70s and 80s. The author seems to be a liberal Catholic who operates on the view that what counts as authoritative Catholicism is arrived at by contest and that any definition of Catholicism is in principle as valid as any other. (He does, quite some way into the book, present defector testimony suggesting Veronica Lueken was a conscious fraud - eg she did not observe behaviour codes she imposed on her followers, such as not watching TV - and also notes that none of her four surviving children are Baysiders, but he discounts this.) He even suggests that had Veronica L been handled differently she might have achieved official recognition on a par with Lourdes, Fatima etc which I consider highly unlikely, she just strikes me as the hysterical type of the sort analysed in Fr Thurston[s writings. A few interesting points: (1) The author has access to the Brooklyn diocesan archives for the early decades of the Bayside phenomenon; one thing that comes across is that the diocese was governed by a "social justice" bishop who initially took very little interest in the phenomenon and only carried out a cursory investigation, so that by the time he got round to condemning it it was already out of control. (2) There is some very useful material on how the fringe worldwide links up and self-reinforces; for example, the idea that Paul VI was being replaced by an impostor Pope was started by a fringe group in Mexico and picked up by the Baysiders, whence it passed to the Palmarians - though the Baysiders did not claim subsequent Popes were fakes as the Palmarians do. The vile William Kamm, alias Little Pebble, started as a Baysider before setting up his own racket. BTW it seems the idea that the serial killer Son of Sam was part of a satanist conspiracy was originally started by the Baysiders and propagated by several of their adherents in the NYPD. BTW the Garabandal devotee Joey Lomangino gave some encouragement to Bayside in its early stages. Malachi Martin also seems to have come sniffing around the Baysiders, no doubt seeing them as ripe for exploitation.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 4, 2018 22:59:54 GMT
I picked up a leaflet left in a church in Cork giving some of the latest ravings of the "Two Patricks" from their House of Prayer in Tyrone. They present Jesus as telling them that he was "very annoyed to learn" of some of the recent antics of the Irish bishops. Given that Jesus is God and therefore omniscient, this is an odd way of putting things. We are also informed that Pope Francis is Lucifer in human form. A few years ago these same gentlemen were telling us that Pope Benedict was Antichrist. In my humble opinion the Free Presbyterians are more orthodox and theologically rigorous than the Two Patricks. The whole thing is so badly written it makes me feel sorry for its authors and for those who will be taken in by it - victims of the confusion in the church, sheep who have been abandoned to the wolves. (I am including the Two Patricks themselves among the sheep not the wolves BTW.)
|
|