|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 7, 2011 21:40:24 GMT
It's difficult to read people's minds but a couple of things are clear: (1) They do not have appropriate respect for the Church's teaching authority - in fact they have contempt for it. They want a situation in which the Pope (and presumably the bishops) do not have real authority to state what the faithful must believe and practice and are reduced to powerless figureheads. (2) They seem to see religious belief in terms of the life of the club/congregation, rather than seeing this as secondary to/deriving from a relationship with a transcendental God. (3) They basically want a congregationalist church in which there is little or no distinction between clergy and laity - they see Catholic doctrine on the priesthood as a top-down imposition on the laity by a clerical caste, and they dismiss the "high" view of priesthood as being a power-play rather than an expression of divine truth. This would apply to the people who make the most noise in the ACP - I don't know how far the ordinary members go along with this. BTW their blog has a comment on one of the recent posts complaining that very few clergy of the Armagh Province are involved with the ACP: www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2011/12/reminder-reminder/#comments
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 8, 2011 23:36:43 GMT
TO expand on this - they operate on the basis of the "hermeneutic of discontinuity" interpretation of Vatican II. This thesis holds in its most radical forms: (1) Over time, probably since the early Church, the Church became corrupted by accretions (involving pomp and ceremony and quasi-monarchical ceremonial, exalting the clergy at the expense of the laity). The true Church should be simple and egalitarian. This corruption went so deep that the pre-conciliar Church basically contained nothing worth preserving (2) The Council began the necessary and radical work of discarding these corruptions and rediscovering true Christianity. This was "the Spirit of Vatican II" - whether the bishops involved consciously intended this result is irrelevant given that it is so obviously desirable. (3) THis, however, has been hindered/retarded by the Popes after Vatican II (Paul VI with Humanae Vitae, John Paul II and Benedict XVI as a matter of course) who are trying to stem the tide and reclaim their power. Their actions (or those of which the liberals do not approve) should be seen not as inspired by any religious impulse but as exercises in sheer power. The way to redress this is essentially to abolish the idea of a hierarchical church and a magisterial teaching authority, and replace them with a church which is a loose ferderation of congregations which have power to revise/discard such teachings as they see fit. Again this is pretty crude and I doubt if many hold it in unadulterated form - but the idea of Vatican II as a bright new dawn betrayed by papal, curial and episcopal reactionaries is a very potent one and seems to exist independently of what the Concil actually said or did.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 2, 2012 16:15:22 GMT
A new year brings new atrocities from the Association of Catholic Priests. Here we find them reproducing an article in which the notorious Fr Richard McBrien denounces the new translation and anyone who supports it in the most unbridled terms, and calls on priests to unilaterally continue to use the superseded translation: www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2011/12/richard-mcbrien-on-the-new-missal/Here is a detailed critique of this McBrien article from Fr Zuhlsdorf's blog: wdtprs.com/blog/2012/01/dealing-with-mcbrien-on-the-new-corrected-translation/ I reproduce the whole entry with its fisking of McBrien's article - the comments in square brackets are by Fr Z, not by me. NB the Fishwrap is Fr Zuhlsdorf's name for the ultra-radical American "Catholic" periodical NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER, which Fr McBrien infests with a regular column. Go to the original Fr Z blog for the comments, which should be worth reading. Go to the ACPI blog for their comments, which are quite worthless except as evidence of how much they hate the magisterium. EXTRACT From the dissident Fishwrap‘s long-time dissident columnist, Fr. Richard McBrien, comes this piece about the new, corrected translation. Pay close attention to the contempt he shows for a vast number of people and also the attitude of disobedience he promotes. It is not merely that he doesn’t like the new, corrected translation. He doesn’t like the people who like the new, corrected translation. Furthermore, note that McBrien will advocate that priests disobey lawful authority and continue to use the obsolete ICEL translation. He advises them to impose their own will on the people in the pews. He has advised disobedience before (click HERE). McBrien’s suggestion is scandalous in its disrespect toward proper authority. It also shows contempt for people in the pews, who have the right to a liturgy celebrated as the Church desires. People have a right not to have the priest impose his pet ideas on their worship. This is a particularly brutal form of clericalism. The faithful are obliged to attend Mass. McBrien would oblige people to endure the oppressive whims of a priest. In this piece McBrien reveals his ultra-clericalist attitude. Dealing with the new translation of the Mass by Richard McBrien on Dec. 26, 2011 There used to be an anti-liturgical joke circulating that said that the only difference between a terrorist and a liturgist is that you can negotiate with a terrorist.
By the same token, there is a seriously mistaken impression abroad that the new translation of the missal was inspired and promoted by liturgists. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The great majority of liturgical scholars were opposed to the new, literal translations. [Fact check: the new translation is NOT a "literal" translation. And note his phrasing here. LOL!] Those who favored the changes were adherents of the so-called “reform of the reform.”
In other words, the changes were inspired and promoted, not by liturgists, but by traditionalists in the hierarchy and a minority of ultra-conservatives within the Catholic church generally. [Oooooo. I guess this means that McBrien's brand of liturgists must be incredibly feckless! No?]
Such Catholics were never supportive of the liturgical reforms initiated by the Second Vatican Council: turning the altar around so that the priest would face the congregation during Mass, [Where is that in the documents of the Council?] receiving Holy Communion in the hand, [Where is that in the documents of the Council?]celebrating the Mass in the vernacular, [The Council said that the liturgy was to remain in Latin.]having altar girls as well as altar boys, [Where is that in the documents of the Council?]and so forth.
In the extreme, they attended Latin Masses wherever they were available. [Imagine such a thing! Members of the Latin Church going to Mass in the language the Council said Mass should be used. No. Wait. Again, McBrien is playing fast and loose with terms. I think he means the Traditional Latin Mass. "Latin Mass" can be Novus Ordo.] Their celebrants continued to wear the so-called fiddle-back chasubles and birettas. A Catholic Rip Van Winkle awakening from a long sleep beginning sometime in the 1950s would assume that nothing had changed in the meantime. [puhleez]
To be sure, the advocates of the “reform of the reform” have won only a partial victory with this new translation (for example, “I believe …” rather than the more communal “We believe …” in the Credo). [Is the writer unaware that Latin credo means "I believe"? But, no! Wait! "I believe" would be literal.] But the Mass is still in the vernacular; the altar is still turned around; the great majority of people receive Communion in the hand; and there are more likely to be altar girls in the sanctuary than boys. [And there won't be any vocations from the parish.]
Such changes as these are anathema to traditionalist Catholics, who continue to receive Com-munion on the tongue (as is their right), grit their teeth when they see girls serving Mass and attend a Latin Mass from time to time. [Which is their right.]
But they are happy nonetheless to see so many of their fellow Catholics out of sorts because of the new translation of the Mass. They know that it galls Catholics for whom Pope John XXIII is a hero and Vatican II was a great event. [Is this an example of "rash judgment"? Cf. CCC 2477-78.]
I’ve heard Catholics say that their pastors, though not conservative, have praised the new translations. Either their pastors are not being honest because they don’t want to be reported to their bishop or they are deep-down right-wing in their thinking. [Again? So, McBrien, apparently a psychic who can read minds at a distance, is accusing the aforementioned pastors of being liars. Did I get that wrong?]
A retired pastor I heard prepare his congregation the week before the changes were to go into effect had the congregation practice giving the simple response, “And with your spirit.” But he said by way of introduction that the “what” of the changes he and they could handle; the “why” he would leave to the Holy Spirit. [And that is supposed to be proof of... what exactly?]
I suspect many older priests had the same reaction. Only some of the younger (or not-so-young), conservative priests, ordained during the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, would more likely be in favor of the changes than opposed to them. [He finally got something right!]
But what good would come of outright opposition? A well-respected priest in Seattle led a movement recently to have the U.S. bishops slow down the process until all the kinks could be worked out, but that movement, though it gained thousands of supporters, fizzled and died in the end. [Again the word that pops into my mind is feckless. So many people. So little power. Maybe they were just wrong.]
The Vatican had already made up its mind, and the largely conservative U.S. hierarchy [Have you gotten his not so subtle point yet? Liberals/liturgists good... conservatives bad.] would not buck the Vatican, even if it were disposed to do so.
Some Catholics may continue to say “And also with you” rather than “And with your spirit,” or “We believe …” instead of “I believe …” in the Creed, or “one in being with the Father” instead of the highly technical and indecipherable “consubstantial,” also in the Creed. [Do you find it disconcerting that McBrien, who taught what was billed at theology at Notre Dame, finds the word "consubstantial" to be "indecipherable"? Or does he mean that it is "indecipherable" to everyone else?]
Presiders at Mass will have the most difficult time because there have been many tongue-twisting changes in the texts of the Eucharistic prayers. [Maybe they will have to slow down a little.]
Those priests who have been reciting these prayers for many years will inevitably stumble over the new wording, and those priests whose eyesight has failed them and who have memorized unchangeable parts of the Mass will continue to recite the words with which they have been long familiar. At least, that is what I would advise them if they were silly enough to ask. [Tu enim dixisti.]
This column will return to this subject a number of times in the future because it affects us all. In the meantime, I wanted to dispel a few of the most common misunderstandings about the new translations and their origin. [When will that take place?]
What happened at the beginning of Advent 2011, and the implementation of a more accurate translation, was a tiny change compared to the imposition of an artificially created, “New Order” of Mass in Advent of 1969.
Since McBrien uses his liberal psychic powers, I will use my even more powerful conservative psychic powers.
I think McBrien doesn’t like the new translation because he doesn’t like the theology of the Latin prayers, even those of the Novus Ordo, which now comes through more clearly with the new, corrected translation. Therefore he rains his atrabilious scorn down on those who respect their Catholic identity and want both what the Second Vatican Council actually asked for and also what their legitimate liturgical tradition has passed down through the centuries. END OF EXTRACT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 2, 2012 16:23:09 GMT
Here we see the ACPI attempting humour, and incidentally shedding an appalling light on how they view the Body and Blood of Christ. The "joke" involves presenting a recipe for making cookies in the Latinate English of the new Mass translation. The joke, such as it is, rests on the assumption that the same language should be used in the Mass as is used in a recipe book, and that anything else is a mystification - which rests on the conscious or unconscious assumption - and some of the commenters sound awfully as if for them it is a conscious assumption - that the consecrated Host is nothing more special than a cookie. Apologies for reproducing this dreadful piece of borderline blasphemy; I do this simply as evidence of how the ACPI mindset tends inexorably towards a Zwinglian view of the Eucharist. www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2011/12/christmas-cookies-recipe/20 Dec Christmas Cookies Recipe. (Revised Translation) Christmas Cookies Recipe (According to the Revised Translation) Serves: you and many. Cream these ingredients, that by their comingling you may begin to make the dough: 1 chalice butter, 2/3 chalice sugar. In a similar way, when the butter is consubstantial with the sugar, beat in: 1 egg. Gather these dry ingredients to yourself and combine them, so that you may add them to the dough which you have already begun to make: 21/2 chalices sifted all-purpose flour, ½ teaspoon salt, 1 teaspoon vanilla. Mix the precious dough with your venerable hands. Into the refrigerator graciously place the dough so that it may be chilled, for the duration of 3 or 4 hours, before the rolling and cutting of the cookies. When, in the fullness of time, you are ready to bake these spotless cookies, these delicious cookies, these Christmas cookies, preheat the oven to 350 degrees. Roll out the dough and, taking up a cookie cutter or stencil of your choosing, fashion the cookies into pleasing forms. Sprinkle colourful adornments over cookies like the dewfall. Bake for 8 to 10 minutes, or until the cookies have just begun to manifest the brownness that is vouchsafed to them by the oven’s heat. May these cookies be found acceptable in your sight, and be borne to a place of refreshment at your table, there to be served with milk or hot chocolate, or with your spirit. News 11 Responses Wendy Murphy December 21st, 2011 at 3:14 pm Thank you so much for this (laughs out loud) Happy Christmas! Soline Humbert December 21st, 2011 at 9:47 pm Can these cookies be made by female hands? Will they not lack validity? Gabriel L. Gore December 22nd, 2011 at 10:47 am Very clever, and did give a bit of a chuckle. But instructive too, about how language uses different registers in different contexts. Just as a lofty register seems out of place in a cookery context, so a casual register seems equally out of place in a sacred liturgical context; only in the latter case one doesn’t laugh, one cries! Happy Christmas! Paul Booth December 23rd, 2011 at 1:11 pm Wickedly funny, and very much to the point. Roaminkath December 23rd, 2011 at 9:24 pm And with your spirit! John Collins December 24th, 2011 at 2:14 pm Trying to remember to put my teeth in when “trying” to speak such bad English in the new translation (using the word loosely) your recipe brings a welcome cheer. Thank you all in ACP for your hard work and Happy Christmas. Martin December 25th, 2011 at 6:07 pm The cookies sound nice – maybe somebody should bake them and post the pictures? Maureen Mulvaney December 28th, 2011 at 11:33 am Soline, be careful when making those cookies, you just might be excommunicated!!!!!!! Soline Humbert December 29th, 2011 at 10:05 pm Maureen, You are right: It is the will of God that Christmas Cookies confecting be reserved to men alone for ever! It is a grave crime against the faith for a woman to even attempt to do so…. Diffal December 31st, 2011 at 12:48 pm If that is the revised translation here is how it would sound in the superseded translation: Christmas Cookies Recipe (According to the Superseded Translation). Put in a bowl, some lovely yellow fatty stuff, some nice sweet white stuff, and an egg(presiding cook’s note -although the book says to beat the egg don’t do it, cause I don’t like that) mix all that lovely stuff. [The remaining ingredients have been left out of this translation to avoid unnecessary repetition and detail weighing us down] After some time put the cookies in the warm cooking thing. Cook then serve with marty haugen(-dazs) iScream. Joe O'Leary January 1st, 2012 at 6:43 pm See, Diffal? It is very difficult to parody the 1973 translations, because they are so plain. Marco Politi’s brilliant analysis of the Ratzinger pontificate is a must read for more light on the dysfunctional system that has given rise to the imposition of these appalling translations. END ADDENDUM - Here are two more comments which have been added since I originally reproduced the post. I wholeheartedly endorse their sentiments and congratulate Bernard O'Callaghan and Diffal on doing something to dispel the noxious cloud of self-regard with which the ACPI surrounds itself. Bernard O'Callaghan January 2nd, 2012 at 11:55 pm Thank goodness we no longer have the same sort of language for the liturgy as we have for banal everyday uses. The old ICEL translation addressed the Most Holy God like a civil servant two grades higher up the ladder. The new one may yet teach us some humility and dependence on heavenly grace, instead of trying to inculcate social activism and this-worldly salvation by human works. Don’t be so patronising as to think that the laity can’t take on board the new translation. You, the priests, should be teaching us about it and deepening our faith and appreciation of the Holy Mass, not griping about it. Diffal January 3rd, 2012 at 6:13 pm I wasn’t trying to be funny, I was simply comparing it to parody of the new translation. There is nothing funny about using bland and inaccurate translations in the Liturgy. Time to move with the times and embrace the new translation! As Bernard O’Callaghan said above, maybe we the laity are more intelligent that you give us credit for. We can handle the complexity and the richness of the new translation.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 2, 2012 16:42:20 GMT
www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2011/12/a-model-which-could-help-the-assembly-of-the-irish-church/#commentsFor those who can stomach the ACPI, here we see an orthodox commenter called Spencer criticising the ACPI's proposed Assembly of the Irish Church: EXTRACT Spencer December 27th, 2011 at 12:34 am The Anglicans accept the majority vote on what the truth is by reference to contemporary morals. What a pity that the Apostles and the early Church didn’t discover this way of doing business, the media would have always loved us, Oliver Plunkett would have died in his bed, etc. etc. Thank goodness that the ACP came along. Free at last! END A pro-ACPI commenter then spectacularly misses Spencer's point: EXTRACT Mary Burke January 1st, 2012 at 1:47 am Yes, Spencer, it’s called the sensus fidelium. The Bishop of Rome himself is elected by counting heads. END Let's take a few points overlooked by Mary Burke: (1) The sensus fidelium refers to all the faithful who have ever lived (not to mention the Church Triumphant in eternity) not just the majority of those alive at present. It is determined from Scripture and tradition as well as by the views of those now alive; to say a simple majority suffices amounts to saying that Scripture and tradition have no real authority but mean whatever the majority want them to mean. (2) Spencer's point is that the truth or falsity of doctrine is not determined by majority vote, any more than (say) the truth of a scientific proposition. Let us suppose, for example, that at some point in the future holocaust deniers were to convince a majority in some country that the Holocaust never happened, it would still be true that the holocaust did happen; if the majority of inhabitants of Dogpatch, Arkansas believe the earth was created 6000 years ago in seven days of 24 hours, it remains the case that the earth is much older than that; if a majority vote for Barabbas and declare Jesus is not God, it remains the case that Jesus is God and it was a mistake to reject Him for Barabbas. (3) There is an obvious difference between the selection of an individual Pope and the declaration of doctrinal truth, unless you believe that doctrine is simply based on whatever the Pope may happen to declare at any given time and has no other basis, as Mary Burke apparently does. (4) Most countries do not allow fundamental legislation to be changed by a simple majority, and the point of constitutions and international conventions on human rights is precisely to state that certain principles are so basic to a well ordered society that they cannot and should not be discarded, even by the majority will. Does Mary Burke believe, for example, that a majority who choose to exterminate the minority represent a democratic "sensus fidelium"? Perhaps it is appropriate that the post has also attracted a comment by someone who appears to be an atheist or Protestant bigot who believes the whole Church is nothing but a con-job and the antics of the ACPI must inevitably lead them to reject it root and branch.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 3, 2012 20:11:32 GMT
Here we see an example of how ACPI supporters tend to oppose the idea of any distinction between sacred and secular realms and between priests and laity. It is important to be careful with distinctions here; the sacred and the secular cannot and should not be completely separated; the Church is founded on the Incarnation and the sacramental principle, and we are the mystical body of Jesus and should work for His Kingdom in every sphere of life. This principle can be distorted by "conservative" as well as "liberal" Catholics. The "conservative" distortion is the view that a Catholic theocracy would automatically amount to heaven on earth, whether this view is advanced by those who believe such a theocracy can actually be created (a la Fr Denis Fahey) or those who believe that since such a theocracy cannot be created the only possible response is for "true" Catholics to withdraw into little self-regarding pseudo-aristocratic cliques, shielding themselves from any contact with the wicked world which must inevitably corrupt them. The "liberal" version strongly tends towards a sort of pantheism in which the sacred is abolished and obliterated by the secular - as Coleridge put it when criticising pantheism, if everything is God, nothing is God. The liberal version in this context amounts to treating the worldview of RTE and the IRISH TIMES as above criticism and to be treated as self-evident, with a certain amount of trimmings about how it is the true message of Jesus. (And some elements of it are part of the true message of Jesus - that is the trick; the falsehoods are sweetened with misapplied truths.) The one comment by an ACPI member is very revealing. Note how the commenter declares BOTH that the ACPI's proposed assembly of the Irish Church will be "inclusive" and that it will "reflect the views of all the people who share our goals and aspirations". Those of us who regard the "goals and aspirations" of the ACPI as fatally flawed and incapable of solving the Church's real problems are assumed not to exist, so there is no need to "include" us in this Assembly, even though the Assembly bills itself as representing the Irish Church as a whole, not just the ACPI and its fan-club. www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2012/01/an-association-of-priests-and-people/#comments02 Jan An Association of Priests and People? I have always prayerfully supported this Association and do see the need for a forum in which priests can express their views etc; Richard Rohr recently stated that it is we who have created a dualism between the sacred and the secular, the spiritual and the non-spiritual. They never have been separate. God put them together in one body that we call Jesus. This struck me most forcibly. Why then should we have a separate association for the ordained? Should we not have one bigger, more productive, more life affirming and mutually self supportive association of priests and people? The acronym could stay the same. ACP = Association of the People of God or Association of Priests and People. You need us just as much as we need you and I do believe the only way we can move forward effectively is by working together. I will continue to pray for all our priests and the whole Church but I hope that somewhere a little voice may respond, “You know what, she does have a point. Let’s discuss!” Rath Dé oraibh go léir, Mary O Vallely, Armagh parish News One Response Ned Quinn January 2nd, 2012 at 5:19 pm Mary, Please be assured that we in the ACP sincerely appreciate the support and prayers of so many people like your good self. And you certianly do have a good point. Can I refer you to the address by Brendan Hoban to the fledgling ACP on 15th Sept. 2010 at Portlaoise where he outlines the aims and priorities of the Association. I am sure that the forthcoming assembly will be inclusive and will reflect the views of all the people who share our goals and aspirations. END
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 17, 2012 21:54:01 GMT
Here we have some "creative" Biblical interpretation by the ACP. They interpret the defeat of the Israelites and the capture by the Philistines of the Ark of the Covenant in 1 Samuel 4:1-11 as showing the folly of relying on traditional forms of religious devotion. In fact, the full Biblical story emphasises that there was nothing wrong with the Ark per se (as their reading would imply) - indeed, the Ark later manifests its power when held by the Philistines in ways which make the Philistines speedily restore it to the ISraelites. The Book of Samuel attributes the failure of the Ark to bring victory exclusively to the sins of the people's religious leaders. The ACP commenter twists this to present the sins of the said leaders to consist solely in reliance on traditional forms of spirituality, rather than on the very specific forms of corruption and immorality described in 1 Samuel's description of the sons of Eli. (I might add that the way in which Eli, though personally upright, brings his people to disaster by failing to take action against his sons' abuse of their priestly office, has painful resonances for contemporary Ireland.) The implicit self-praise of the ACPI as sole bearers of enlightenment, as found in this passage, reminds me of the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee. EXTRACT FROM THE ACPI COMMENTARY The Scripture today invites us to evaluate our reliance on externals, whether visible religious objects like the Ark of the Covenant, or flamboyant religious services, or miracles like the cure of the leper, or customs and routines in which we are set and hardened. Reading today’s Old Testament passage, questions might surface in our mind. Who could blame the Israelites for trusting in the Ark of the Covenant? After all, it was their principal link with the days of Moses and the origins of their religion in the Sinai desert. Their traditions acclaimed the power of God, manifested through the presence of the Ark. In the Torah we are told that whenever the people set out from camp, the Ark moved with them, symbolic of God’s direction of their lives. They would sing, “Arise, O Lord, let your enemies be scattered, and may those who hate you fall before you.” And when the Ark came to rest, the people would pray: “Return, O Lord, you who ride on the clouds, to the troops of Israel” (Num 10:35-36). Out of this ancient tradition, a long psalm was composed which began with the rousing words, “Let God arise, and let his enemies be scattered; let those who hate him flee before him” (Ps 68:2). Why shouldn’t the Jews believe that with the ark in their midst, their Philistine enemies must scatter? And why shouldn’t the leper, once healed by Jesus, proclaim the whole matter freely? Somehow, it seems Jesus shunned these public demonstrations. [AT CERTAIN POINTS IN HIS MINISTRY, BEFORE THE APPROPRIATE TIME HAD COME] To avoid notoriety, Jesus stayed in desert places, but the people kept coming to him from all sides. No matter how marvellous was the healing of the leper, Mark stresses the supremacy of faith. As the Even today our heart must be open to new graces and most of all to God’s personal presence. The externals of religion, even the most sacred dogmas and holiest objects, are meant to facilitate our interior communion with the Lord. [ARE DOGMAS ONLY AN "EXTERNAL"?] Our hearts, when silence prevails and distraction is absent – our hearts that seem like “desert places” – are the true Ark of the Covenant and place of miracle. For his own reasons, God sometimes allows the externals on which we rely seemingly to collapse. The Ark will be captured by the enemy. The tried and true of religious practice suddenly seems inadequate to our needs and leaves us lonely and helpless. We must traverse this desert to find Jesus. BUT IF YOU ARE NOT CAREFUL YOU WILL FIND SOMEONE ELSE BESIDES JESUS, WHO WAS ALSO IN THE DESERT Discerning true from false religiosity is not always easy. The common folk are hardly to blame for rallying around traditional centres of religion – the Ark of the Covenant and the miraculous power of God. BUT THE ACPI KNOW BETTER THAN THE GREAT UNWASHED Who then is to blame? It seems that religious leaders carry the burden of fault. THAT IS TO SAY, THOSE RELIGIOUS LEADERS WHO WILL NOT DO WHAT THE ACPI TELLS THEM Earlier in First Samuel, in a section not mentioned in the liturgy, Eli’s sons Hophni and Phinehas were guilty of serious wrongdoing. They were reserving the best part of the people’s sacrifices for themselves and offering to God only the remnants; there were other scandalous actions. Religious leaders bear the brunt of blame if superstition [WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU HAVE IN MIND? ARE YOU SAYING IT WAS SUPERSTITIOUS TO VENERATE THE ARK?] and selfishness are rampant among the people – or if the people cannot distinguish true from false forms of religion... END OF EXTRACT www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2012/01/12-jan-thursday-of-week-one/
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 1, 2012 22:53:38 GMT
I have tried to access the ACPI website several times today and get an "Account Suspended" message. Have I been blocked from the site, or is the website down? If the former, I would just state that whatever I have said about their statement constituted fair comment, and I did my best to link to or reproduce what I was criticising so that my readers could judge my interpretation for themselves. {UPDATE - I was able to access the site again today, so it seems there was simply some sort of short-term technical fault]
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 23, 2012 23:22:54 GMT
The ACPI is currently publicising a profile of Fr Sean MacDonagh from the NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER (alias the FISHWRAP) in the US, which mentions he studied with the eco-theologian Fr Thomas Berry, who if I recall correctly was anatomised in a NEW OXFORD REVIEW piece reprinted in the BRANDSMA some years ago. This passage from the profile seems to be attracting particular comment, both at the ACPI and on the NCR site: EXTRACT ...Columban Sisters’ work reducing infant mortality took him into issues that are a compelling and complex challenge for the church: Will there be too many mouths to feed?
“The issue for church is the carrying capacity of the world: its resources, its food supply, for humans, but for all the other creatures as well. One reason the Catholic church is slow to get into the environment is the whole population issue. You can’t discuss it, you can’t raise it at all.”.. END OF EXTRACT
Here are the two comments so far to this piece on the ACPI site: EXTRACT Mary O Vallely February 23rd, 2012 at 3:50 pm To think that Fr Sean could have been lost to canon law! (and I am in agreement with Mr Bumble the Beadle’s opinion on the law} The culture of blind obedience in the Catholic Church mystifies me. No discussion of population issues is allowed. As Fr Sean says, “We can’t raise it at all!” So more and more mothers and babies will die and we are forbidden to have an intelligent, humane discussion?? I don’t think any topic concerning the future of this planet and all life on it should be out of bounds for discussion.Then again, I am a mere woman and have not a notion about canon law. Strikes me canon law is deemed more important than the lives of children. Did I not hear about a certain American Law being welcomed with open and generous arms in Rome despite an appalling record of neglect towards his flock back home? Sean (Derry) February 23rd, 2012 at 6:04 pm “… the whole population issue. You can’t discuss it, you can’t raise it at all.” What does that mean? END
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 24, 2012 23:11:17 GMT
Credit where credit is due - today's reflection on "True Fasting" with reference to the reading from Isaiah in today's Mass (in the NO/OF calendar) is very good.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 8, 2012 23:14:41 GMT
Normal low standards are resumed at the ACPI blog. The link below will take you to a post in which a priest called Tony Butler uses the theft of the relic of St Laurence O'Toole to declare that Christianity is an incarnational religion inseparable from the body. From there he progresses to denounce orthodox Christianity for devaluing the body, to advocate gay marriage, and to denounce the idea that anyone at all should be excluded from the sacraments on the grounds that sacraments are a sign of unity. He finishes by attacking a priest in Washington DC who refused communion to a woman at her own mother's funeral because the woman had directly told him she was an active lesbian (I should add that there have been claims that this was a deliberate set-up to get the priest into trouble). www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=27899wdtprs.com/blog/2012/03/call-me-overly-suspicious/Don't believe me? Here's the post: EXTRACT 06 Mar Theft of Laurence O’Toole’s heart – a reflection The Theft Of A Heart. Last Sunday’s Liturgy presented us in scripture with the body of Isaac readied for sacrifice and the body of Jesus glorified in Transfiguration. Saturday evening I was thinking these thoughts in relation to Body Theology and then I heard that the heart of St. Laurence O’Toole had been stolen. I immediately felt this theft of a man’s heart in my gut. Who would steal a human heart? no matter how ancient, whether that heart is of a man or woman, a saint or not? In my very gut I felt this violation of a human being. Body Theology and my innards? My understanding of that theology is that first I am body, not just that I have a body. As I understand it the Incarnation is God’s vindication of the created world and of human beings. This world and we, bodied men and women, and all that is created are indispensible to our eternal salvation. It is in our bodies that we can know moral knowledge. If we cannot feel within our very bodies justice and injustice, hope and hopelessness, love and hatred, integration and destruction, these terms remain unreal and abstract. The history by which the rejection of ” the world ” and the body came to have such influence on our spirituality today is not for here, it is too long and complex, but Church suspicion of the body, sexuality and intimacy is the under the control of Church as ” it ” and needs to enter into dialogue with the Church as ” we ” the People of God. [ A DIALOGUE IN WHICH FR BUTLER AND HIS ILK INSIST ON DOING ALL THE TALKING AND WILL ONLY ACCEPT ONE ANSWER] When I stand as solemniser at marriage, more and more I realise that this public expression of love of bride and groom is the greatest compliment one human being can pay to another. At marriage we are invited to enter into the love of these two people who by an exchange of consent hand over, one to the other, all that is precious and intimate in themselves and expect nothing less in return.This is sacrament bodied in all its beauty and mystery. And our brothers and sisters who seek a blessing for their committment in love and fidelity to their same gender partner ? How can we control blessing? Men and women who are members of our faith-communities and who ask that God be part of their lives together. A blessing that their lives together be open to the presence of God in their lives, the in their relationship they open their hearts to the needy, the unloved and the needy, that the Church support them in their fidelity to each other and that they add to the life of the Church. [AND BY THE SAME ARGUMENT YOU COULD ARGUE THAT HAVING A DIFFERENT PARTNER EVERY DAY WAS AN EXPRESSION OF THE BODY AND A REACHING OUT TO THE NEEDY AND THAT ONLY A MONSTER COULD CONDMEN IT] How can we control blessing? The Eucharist was never instituted and then to be used as a penalty [THERE WAS A WELL-KNOWN IRISH GANGLAND HITMAN WHO WAS ALSO A DAILY MASSGOER. NO DOUBT FR BUTLER WOULD COMMEND THIS, AND WOULD CONDEMN THE UNCOMPASSIONATE DECISIONS OF SUCCESSIVE ARCHBISHOPS OF NEW YORK TO REFUSE CATHOLIC FUNERALS TO PAUL CASTELLANO AND JOHN GOTTI JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE MAFIA BOSSES. ST PETER, TOO, WAS SO HARSH AND JUDGMENTAL TOWARDS ANANIAS AND SIMON MAGUS...] The unity of the Eucharist is most most clearly seen in its very brokenness. The recent public refusal of Holy Communion to Barbara Johnson in the United States by the priest-celebrant of her mother’s funeral Liturgy and his walking off the sanctuary as she began her words of thanks to the congregation was his personal objection [NOT HIS PERSONAL OBJECTION - THE WORD OF CHRIST] to Barbara’s choice to live openly as an openly lesbian woman. Who are we to claim control over sacraments? [WHO WAS IT THAT SAID WHATEVER YOU BIND IN EARTH WILL BE BOUND IN HEAVEN AND WHATEVER YOU LOOSE ON EARTH WILL BE LOOSED IN HEAVEN? SOUNDS LIKE HE HAD CONTROL OF THE SACRAMENTS IN MIND] The great task for us to face as Church is the use of power, if we ever to be accountable then that accountability is about the use of power. A heart is stolen, a body readied for sacrifice and the body of Jesus glorified in Tranfiguration, by the hand of God Isaac was unbound, hopefully the heart of Laurence will be returned and may the glory of the body of Christ be seen in all members of Christ’s Body, the Church. in us, all of us, the People of God. That I feel in my body, in my gut. END www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2012/03/theft-of-the-heart-of-laurence-otoole/#comments
Here's a different theology of the body from 1 Corinthians. Read the whole Chapter 6 of which these are only extracts Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."... Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body. END OF EXTRACT
Of course Fr Butler's ravings attract some of the usual ACPI combox fan club, who respond with the incoherent zeal of Pentecostal Holy Rollers: 3 Responses Mary O Vallely March 6th, 2012 at 2:43 pm Yes, I feel in my gut that “it is the Lord who speaks” here. This is a priest speaking with a heart and from the heart and it warms my own heart because I feel and hear the humanity and the divine in these words. Yes! Thank you. It reaffirms my faith in my Church that there are such men who can see as Christ would see. It fills me with hope. Yes! Mary V Paddy Ferry March 6th, 2012 at 10:55 pm Like Mary, Fr.Tony’s reflection warms my heart too and reaffirms my faith in our Church. Thank you Tony. Jo O'Sullivan March 8th, 2012 at 7:54 am Yes. Thank you from the depth of my being Tony. As a woman, brought up in a church where my very body has been a cause for a deeply rooted shame since puberty (and No, that is not an exaggeration!) it feels like a soothing balm to read the words Tony has written. Míle buíochas. Jo O’Sullivan END Jonathan Swift's religious satire A TALE OF A TUB features a set of religious maniacs called Aeolists who worship the wind and propagate their religion by belching at one another, their female members being particularly adept in this. Any resemblance between them and the ACPI is of course entirely coincidental: EXTRACT The learned AEolists maintain the original cause of all things to be wind, from which principle this whole universe was at first produced, and into which it must at last be resolved, that the same breath which had kindled and blew up the flame of Nature should one day blow it out. "Quod procul a nobis flectat Fortuna gubernans." This is what the Adepti understand by their anima mundi, that is to say, the spirit, or breath, or wind of the world; or examine the whole system by the particulars of Nature, and you will find it not to be disputed. For whether you please to call the forma informans of man by the name of spiritus, animus, afflatus, or anima, what are all these but several appellations for wind, which is the ruling element in every compound, and into which they all resolve upon their corruption. Further, what is life itself but, as it is commonly called, the breath of our nostrils, whence it is very justly observed by naturalists that wind still continues of great emolument in certain mysteries not to be named, giving occasion for those happy epithets of turgidus and inflatus, applied either to the emittent or recipient organs. By what I have gathered out of ancient records, I find the compass of their doctrine took in two-and-thirty points, wherein it would be tedious to be very particular. However, a few of their most important precepts deducible from it are by no means to be omitted; among which, the following maxim was of much weight: That since wind had the master share as well as operation in every compound, by consequence those beings must be of chief excellence wherein that primordium appears most prominently to abound, and therefore man is in highest perfection of all created things, as having, by the great bounty of philosophers, been endued with three distinct animas or winds, to which the sage AEolists, with much liberality, have added a fourth, of equal necessity as well as ornament with the other three, by this quartum principium taking in the four corners of the world. Which gave occasion to that renowned cabalist Bombastus {119a} of placing the body of man in due position to the four cardinal points. In consequence of this, their next principle was that man brings with him into the world a peculiar portion or grain of wind, which may be called a quinta essentia extracted from the other four. This quintessence is of catholic use upon all emergencies of life, is improveable into all arts and sciences, and may be wonderfully refined as well as enlarged by certain methods in education. This, when blown up to its perfection, ought not to be covetously boarded up, stifled, or hid under a bushel, but freely communicated to mankind. Upon these reasons, and others of equal weight, the wise AEolists affirm the gift of belching to be the noblest act of a rational creature. To cultivate which art, and render it more serviceable to mankind, they made use of several methods. At certain seasons of the year you might behold the priests amongst them in vast numbers with their mouths gaping wide against a storm. At other times were to be seen several hundreds linked together in a circular chain, with every man a pair of bellows applied to his neighbour, by which they blew up each other to the shape and size of a tun; and for that reason with great propriety of speech did usually call their bodies their vessels {119b}. When, by these and the like performances, they were grown sufficiently replete, they would immediately depart, and disembogue for the public good a plentiful share of their acquirements into their disciples' chaps. For we must here observe that all learning was esteemed among them to be compounded from the same principle. Because, first, it is generally affirmed or confessed that learning puffeth men up; and, secondly, they proved it by the following syllogism: "Words are but wind, and learning is nothing but words; ergo, learning is nothing but wind." For this reason the philosophers among them did in their schools deliver to their pupils all their doctrines and opinions by eructation, wherein they had acquired a wonderful eloquence, and of incredible variety. But the great characteristic by which their chief sages were best distinguished was a certain position of countenance, which gave undoubted intelligence to what degree or proportion the spirit agitated the inward mass. For after certain gripings, the wind and vapours issuing forth, having first by their turbulence and convulsions within caused an earthquake in man's little world, distorted the mouth, bloated the cheeks, and gave the eyes a terrible kind of relievo. At which junctures all their belches were received for sacred, the sourer the better, and swallowed with infinite consolation by their meagre devotees. And to render these yet more complete, because the breath of man's life is in his nostrils, therefore the choicest, most edifying, and most enlivening belches were very wisely conveyed through that vehicle to give them a tincture as they passed. Their gods were the four winds, whom they worshipped as the spirits that pervade and enliven the universe, and as those from whom alone all inspiration can properly be said to proceed. However, the chief of these, to whom they performed the adoration of Latria, was the Almighty North, an ancient deity, whom the inhabitants of Megalopolis in Greece had likewise in highest reverence. "Omnium deorum Boream maxime celebrant." {120} This god, though endued with ubiquity, was yet supposed by the profounder AEolists to possess one peculiar habitation, or (to speak in form) a caelum empyraeum, wherein he was more intimately present. This was situated in a certain region well known to the ancient Greeks, by them called [Greek text which cannot be reproduced], the Land of Darkness. And although many controversies have arisen upon that matter, yet so much is undisputed, that from a region of the like denomination the most refined AEolists have borrowed their original, from whence in every age the zealous among their priesthood have brought over their choicest inspiration, fetching it with their own hands from the fountain-head in certain bladders, and disploding it among the sectaries in all nations, who did, and do, and ever will, daily gasp and pant after it. Now their mysteries and rites were performed in this manner. It is well known among the learned that the virtuosos of former ages had a contrivance for carrying and preserving winds in casks or barrels, which was of great assistance upon long sea-voyages, and the loss of so useful an art at present is very much to be lamented, though, I know not how, with great negligence omitted by Pancirollus. It was an invention ascribed to AEolus himself, from whom this sect is denominated, and who, in honour of their founder's memory, have to this day preserved great numbers of those barrels, whereof they fix one in each of their temples, first beating out the top. Into this barrel upon solemn days the priest enters, where, having before duly prepared himself by the methods already described, a secret funnel is also conveyed to the bottom of the barrel, which admits new supplies of inspiration from a northern chink or cranny. Whereupon you behold him swell immediately to the shape and size of his vessel. In this posture he disembogues whole tempests upon his auditory, as the spirit from beneath gives him utterance, which issuing ex adytis and penetralibus, is not performed without much pain and griping. And the wind in breaking forth deals with his face as it does with that of the sea, first blackening, then wrinkling, and at last bursting it into a foam. It is in this guise the sacred AEolist delivers his oracular belches to his panting disciples, of whom some are greedily gaping after the sanctified breath, others are all the while hymning out the praises of the winds, and gently wafted to and fro by their own humming, do thus represent the soft breezes of their deities appeased. It is from this custom of the priests that some authors maintain these AEolists to have been very ancient in the world, because the delivery of their mysteries, which I have just now mentioned, appears exactly the same with that of other ancient oracles, whose inspirations were owing to certain subterraneous effluviums of wind delivered with the same pain to the priest, and much about the same influence on the people. It is true indeed that these were frequently managed and directed by female officers, whose organs were understood to be better disposed for the admission of those oracular gusts, as entering and passing up through a receptacle of greater capacity, and causing also a pruriency by the way, such as with due management has been refined from carnal into a spiritual ecstasy. And to strengthen this profound conjecture, it is further insisted that this custom of female priests is kept up still in certain refined colleges of our modern AEolists {122}, who are agreed to receive their inspiration, derived through the receptacle aforesaid, like their ancestors the Sybils. And whereas the mind of man, when he gives the spur and bridle to his thoughts, does never stop, but naturally sallies out into both extremes of high and low, of good and evil, his first flight of fancy commonly transports him to ideas of what is most perfect, finished, and exalted, till, having soared out of his own reach and sight, not well perceiving how near the frontiers of height and depth border upon each other, with the same course and wing he falls down plump into the lowest bottom of things, like one who travels the east into the west, or like a straight line drawn by its own length into a circle. Whether a tincture of malice in our natures makes us fond of furnishing every bright idea with its reverse, or whether reason, reflecting upon the sum of things, can, like the sun, serve only to enlighten one half of the globe, leaving the other half by necessity under shade and darkness, or whether fancy, flying up to the imagination of what is highest and best, becomes over-short, and spent, and weary, and suddenly falls, like a dead bird of paradise, to the ground; or whether, after all these metaphysical conjectures, I have not entirely missed the true reason; the proposition, however, which has stood me in so much circumstance is altogether true, that as the most uncivilised parts of mankind have some way or other climbed up into the conception of a God or Supreme Power, so they have seldom forgot to provide their fears with certain ghastly notions, which, instead of better, have served them pretty tolerably for a devil. And this proceeding seems to be natural enough, for it is with men whose imaginations are lifted up very high after the same rate as with those whose bodies are so, that as they are delighted with the advantage of a nearer contemplation upwards, so they are equally terrified with the dismal prospect of the precipice below. Thus in the choice of a devil it has been the usual method of mankind to single out some being, either in act or in vision, which was in most antipathy to the god they had framed. Thus also the sect of the AEolists possessed themselves with a dread and horror and hatred of two malignant natures, betwixt whom and the deities they adored perpetual enmity was established. The first of these was the chameleon, sworn foe to inspiration, who in scorn devoured large influences of their god, without refunding the smallest blast by eructation. The other was a huge terrible monster called Moulinavent [windmill], who with four strong arms waged eternal battle with all their divinities, dexterously turning to avoid their blows and repay them with interest... END OF EXTRACT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 15, 2012 23:30:11 GMT
Here is a link to Brendan Hoban's latest cheerleading for the forthcoming ACPI-sponsored "Towards an Assembly of the Irish Church" conference in May. This will of course be presented as TOWARDS an assembly to avoid inviting anyone who disagrees with the ACPI and its lay accomplices, but after the even it will be presented as speaking for the whole Irish Church, except the bishops. The reference to the laity being radicalised "except for the cheerleaders who want to go back to the nineteenth century" is a sneer at you and me, dear readers - first time anyone called me a cheerleader. Might I suggest the remark about wanting to go back to the nineteenth century might better be directed at those people who maintain the church's problem is too many priests, and that we should not encourage vocations since we ought to go back to the priest-laity ratio of the pre-Famine church which represents "normality" (though the pre-Famine Church was still emerging from the Penal Era and its priests were dreadfully overstretched both physically and financially (cf Emmet Larkin's recent book on the period). Some of THOSE "cheerleaders for a return to the nineteenth century" can be found in close proximiity to the ACPI. www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2012/03/brendan-hoban-on-the-may-gathering-towards-and-assembly/They also have a post on an ACP-like group which has sprung up in the US, which mentions in passing that the members are mostly geriatrics. In the combox Shane is sparring with the egregious Fr Joseph O'Leary about the quality of pre-Vatican II theology. I think Shane does less than justice to the positive side of ressourcement theology, but Fr O'Leary is quite epically snarky and dismissive, as usual. If you want to give moral support to Shane follow the link: www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2012/03/meeting-of-the-newly-formed-association-of-us-priests/
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 7, 2012 19:34:28 GMT
Here we see an ACPI supporter posting on their blog her nightmare vision of what will happen if the "liberals" are all kicked out of or walk away from the Church. This is very revealing about the "liberal" stereotype of conservative/orthodox Catholics. A few points: (1) TRUTH - It is assumed that conservative/traditionalist/orthodox Catholics are such because we don't want to bother thinking for ourselves and prefer to leave it all to Father. The possibility that they actually believe Catholic orthodoxy to be true and various "liberal" versions to be untrue/partial/unbalanced is completely ignored. Religious belief and practice are explicitly presented as matters of subjective preference only (while in fact it is tacitly assumed that "liberalism" is true and the conservative/orthodox view false, but this is never stated as it would mean having to argue for her views instead of treating them as self-evident). (2) THE WORLD - It is assumed that "conservative" Catholics wish to shut themselves off from the outside world because they no longer wish to have people with whom they disagree (i.e. who dissent from fundamental Catholic doctrines) beside them in the pews - that Catholic orthodoxy involves turning the Church into an introversionist sect. Now certainly there are trads who are introversionist, but the basic point of having clear statements of doctrine is so that we can fulfil the Great Commission of going out to the world and proclaiming the Good News, because in order to do that it is necessary to know what it is that we are proclaiming; and the point of restoring the liturgy is so that its true nature can be understood rather than obscured by subjectivist showboating and interpolation. Has Ms O'Sullivan never heard of Frank Duff - who would certainly be an extremely conservative Catholic by her standards? Has she never heard of the great pre-Vatican II missionary movements? Her central assumption is that being cut off from the world is a bad thing, not because it hinders the Church in enlightening the world (which is the true problem with introversionism), but because the Church can only learn from the world and never vice versa. She implies the salt must lose its savour in order to fit in with the world, but without that savour it is worthless. (3) Her crowning argument is that "conservative Catholics" will find that some of their children are lured away by the world and lost to them. This is presented as the bitterest tragedy, and so it is - but the answer lies in better evangelisation - by example as well as word, lest we forget - and in the last resort it is something that must be accepted. Our Lord proclaimed the truth even to the most shameful and agonising death; the martyrs died rather than worship Caesar and conform to his world, even though that world often had many great achievements - before Marcus Aurelius or Ieyasu or Mwanga they loved Him so much they accepted as part of the pearl of great price these terrifying words: Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a swordFor I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10:34-38) www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2012/04/the-church-of-the-future-one-possibility-jo-osullivan/EXTRACT Jo O’Sullivan suggests where the Church may be headed I have been thinking about the Catholic Church of the future. I have been imagining that all those people who have been requested to do so, have walked away – those ‘liberal’ priests and ‘progressive’ religious and those members of the general laity who, in good conscience, cannot accept certain teachings of the Magesterium, cannot force themselves to cease their own reflecting and bow to the ways thinking and acting that are acceptable to “head office”. [THE MAGISTERIUM IS THE TEACHING AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH, GIVEN BY JESUS WITH THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM. IT IS MORE THAN A "HEAD OFFICE"] How does the Church look now? There is tremendous relief, first of all. The people who sit in the pews can feel confident that those on either side of them share their world view. They do not have to worry that some day they might have to attend a Mass that is celebrated by a married man, or a woman! [NOTE SHE DOES NOT DISCUSS ANY SUBSTANTIVE REASONS FOR THIS VIEW - IT IS ASSUMED TO BE ENTIRELY UNTHINKING AND BASED ON NEUROTIC ANXIETY - AND SHE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE "CONSERVATIVE" POSITION - I FOR ONE WOULD HAVE NO "WORRIES" ABOUT ATTENDING A MASS CELEBRATED BY A MARRIED EASTERN RITE PRIEST OR A PRIEST OF THE ANGLICAN ORDINARIATE] They do not have to fear that there may be “failed” Catholics, who are living in sin by cohabiting, going up to receive Communion. And they certainly don’t have to concern themselves with the horror that there might be practicing homosexuals among the ranks participating in the Sacraments! [THIS IS PRESENTED AS IF THEY WERE PHARISEES, BUT THE OBJECTION IS NOT THAT THE PEOPLE MENTIONED ARE "FAILED" - IF THEY REPENT THEY MUST BE RECEIVED BACK - BUT THAT THEY ARE UNREPENTANT SINNERS AND TO ADMIT THEM IMPLIES WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS NOT SINFUL AT ALL. THE REPENTANT HOMOSEXUAL AND COHABITANT WILL ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN BEFORE THE PHARISEE, ANCIENT OR MODERN - "CONSERVATIVE OR LIBERAL, AND JO O'SULLIVAN SOUNDS REMARKABLY LIKE THE LATTER] They are happy to be directed and guided by ‘Father’ – they are confident that, if they are in any way doubtful about the right or wrong in any situation, Father will put them right and they’ll do as he directs to the best of their ability. [THE ASSUMPTION IS THAT THEY NEVER THINK FOR THEMSELVES AT ALL, AND THAT FATHER HAS NOTHING ELSE TO DO WITH HIS TIME.] They have truly beautiful, reverential liturgies – liturgies wherein they keep to the formula approved by Father – because there’s no need for personal initiative, Father knows best. [IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF "FATHER" BUT OF THE CHURCH AS A WHOLE - AND HAS SHE NEVER HEARD THE "FATHER KNOWS BEST LINE" USED TO DISMISS PEOPLE WHO COMPLAIN OF THE LATEST LITURGICAL HORROR SOME LIBERAL "FATHER" HAS SERVED UP ARBITRARILY? DOES SHE THINK, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT TRADS WHO TRAVEL MILES TO ATTEND AN EF/TLM MASS ARE THE PASSIVE ZOMBIES SHE PORTRAYS?] They expect certain behaviour from Father INDEED THEY DO, and they keep a reSPectful distance from him. Though they recognise that he is, of course, human, he is not quite like them – he has been elevated to a higher plane because of his ordination. They certainly don’t like to see Father in the pub or dressed in jeans and sweatshirt. He is being disrespectful to his office by being ordinary. AND WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS? AND DOES SHE THINK IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE A CASUAL CONVERSATION WITH A PRIEST IN CLERICAL DRESS? Father finds it quite a burden to carry – to have the responsibility for other peoples’ moral codes and spiritual direction and never to show that he, too, is a struggling human being, but he accepts that this is the cross he has to bear to be part of the suffering of Jesus, so he accepts his burden and ‘becomes’ his role. Anyway, he can go to fellow priests and to his Bishop to unburden himself. Together they can support each other and reassure each other that they are on the right path (the Magisterium has told them so) and that they will attain their reward in the next life. Then he can go back to his flock – who are anxiously awaiting his next utterance – and resume his role. THE STATEMENT THAT THE TRADITIONAL PRIEST "NEVER SHOWS HIS FLOCK HE IS A STRUGGLING HUMAN BEING" -EVEN IN PRIVATE COUNSELLING? OR NEVER THINKS FOR HIMSELF BUT RELIES ON GROUPTHINK, IS ANOTHER CARICATURE] And the people in the pews? What happens when they leave the church after Mass? The world is a very difficult place. Society has become increasingly secularised and, as such, is disdainful of good, practicing Catholics. The media is foul – attacking Catholic values left, right and centre – scorning those who adhere to the one true path to salvation. Our good Catholics try to participate fully in the life of society around them but they see that there are more and more people who are living in ways not compatible with the one, true faith – many couples living together outside of marriage, many couples in second or subsequent relationships, many homosexuals living openly with gay partners. And, while our good Catholics try to love such people- at a distance, of course, outside of their beloved Church, the said people don’t seem to want their love. They seem to regard the Catholics as bigots and fundamentalists for some reason! But our good Catholics accept that this is part of the suffering that their faith has promised them they’d have to endure so they do so stoically. NOTE THE ASSUMPTION, NEVER STATED BUT INSINUATED, THAT THE GOOD CATHOLICS ARE INDEED BIGOTS AND FUNDAMENTALISTS, THAT THE WORLD IS PERFECTLY RIGHT TO DESPISE THEM, AND THAT THEIR CRITICISMS OF THE MEDIA, THE WORLD ETC ARE ALL UNREASONABLE AND MISGUIDED. ANOTHER VOTE FOR BARABBAS, METHINKS. They surround themselves with like-minded people – of whom, of course, there are many within the confines of the now cleared out Catholic Church. They raise their children with the same great love for the Church – alerting them to the fact that the world is now quite a hostile place to people like them – that they have to be on constant guard against non-Catholic teachings and influences. They feel it’s best to keep their children from such influences by allowing them to mix with only the right people – people who share their world view. In doing so, they raise confident, secure, good Catholic children. HAS IT NEVER OCCURRED TO THIS WOMAN THAT THERE ARE ORTHODOX CATHOLICS WHO EXPLAIN TO THEIR CHILDREN HOW AND WHY THEY DISAGREE WITH THE WORLD WITHOUT TRYING TO SHUT IT OUT COMPLETELY, OR BEAR WITNESS BEFORE THE WORLD RATHER THAN TRYING TO SHUT IT OUT? OF COUR SE, LIKE ALL CARICATURES THIS HAS SOME TRUTH BUT IT IS A GROSS DISTORTION AND A DISPLAY OF COMPLACENT ARROGANCE - SHE IS HERSELF GUILTY OF THE VERY PHARISAISM SHE DENOUNCES When those children begin to explore the world beyond their parents’ realm of influence one of three different things happens. The children think, reflect, explore for themselves and come to the same conclusions as their parents did – and that’s wonderful YOU DON'T REALLY THINK SO - SEE BELOW. All are secure and confident in their shared world view. Or the children find themselves questioning some of their parents’ / Church’s teachings but they know that their Church’s world view doesn’t allow for different conclusions to be reached so they repress their own critical thought processes (there’s no point in allowing yourself to think if the conclusions you have to reach are already cast in stone!) and continue to go through the motions NOTE THE ASSUMPTION THAT CRITICAL THOUGHT CAN ONLY LEAD TO DISSENT, AND THAT THE ORTHODOX ARE NECESSARILY UNTHINKING, WHICH IS WHY I SAY MS O'SULLIVAN DOES NOT REALLY BELIEVE THE FIRST POSSIBILITY SHE PRESENTS. THE VAST TREASUREHOUSE OF THE FAITH IS OPEN BEFORE US, AND MANY LIFETIMES OF THOUGHT AND LABOUR ARE NEEDED TO GRASP ITS RICHES - OF COURSE THERE ARE BIGOTS WHO MISTAKE THEIR OWN CROTCHETS FOR THE FAITH - SUCH AS THE YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONISTS ON THIS FORUM - BUT NOT ALL ORTHODOX ARE LIKE THEM, NOR IS IT ONLY THE ORTHODOX WHO ARE OPINIONATED. Alternatively, the children come to entirely different conclusions and find themselves in constant conflict with their parents – to the point that they either cannot accept or cannot be accepted by their nurturers. The family unit is ruptured. The parents fear for the souls of their children – they have rejected the one true path to salvation!
So much of our good Catholics’ time and energy are being taken up with guarding against the hostile world that there is very little room left for being practicing Christians TELL THAT TO FREDERICK OZANAM, AND NOTE THE ASSUMPTION THAT CATHOLIC AND CHRISTIAN ARE INCOMPATIBLE. It’s very difficult to be Christ’s hands and feet and eyes and ears in a world which sees you as being a passive follower of a misogynistic, homophobic fundamentalist church – a church which has cleansed itself of anybody who dared challenge its teachings in the area of sexuality or in any other area. AND OF COURSE SHE IMPLIES THAT THIS PERCEPTION IS ACCURATE WHILE PRESENTING IT AS "THE WORLD'S" VIEW SO SHE CAN HAVE WRIGGLE ROOM IF SHE IS CHALLENGED ON HER STATEMENTS.
So the Roman Catholic Church has indeed become an exclusive institution. Where has its universality gone? Where is the inclusiveness that the title implies? In fact, it can’t really call itself ‘Catholic’ any more, can it? UNIVERSALITY AND INCLUSIVITY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. THE CULT OF CAESAR WAS INCLUSIVE, AND THE EARLY CHRISTIANS DIED RATHER THAN DENY THE UNIVERSAL WORD AT ITS BEHEST This may seem like gross distortion – Catholicism could NEVER come to this! This is a major world religion which has served the world for two thousand years – it couldn’t possibly become a small, fundamentalist sect LIKE THE PROPHET JEREMIAH SCORNED BY THOSE WHO SPOKE OF PEACE WHERE THERE WAS NONE? LIKE THE RECUSANTS IN ELIZABETHAN ENGLAND, THE PEASANTS AT THE MASS ROCKS OF PENAL DAYS, THE MARTYRS IN KOREA, THE HIDDEN CHRISTIANS IN JAPAN - LIKE THAT LITTLE KNOT OF OBSCURE FISHERMEN AND TENTMAKERS SPEAKING POOR GREEK IN A PETTY ROMAN PROVINCE. Could it? IF NECESSARY, YES - LIKE THE MACCABEES AGAINST THE HELLENISERS WHO CLAIMED TO BE TRULY UNIVERSAL END OF EXTRACT Her subjectivism is also shown in this combox exchange. Not how she reduces Tracy's acceptance of Catholic teaching as true to a matter of mere personal preference EXTRACT Tracy April 29th, 2012 at 3:03 pm There are so many strawmen in this article! I am young and was not brought up with any special focus on spirituality or religion. There were no holy pictures in the house, no family prayers or anything like that. In fact, my parents rarely went to Mass. Yet I, who am in my 30′s and am educated to doctoral level, have willingly embraced the fullness of Catholicism. I have done so using my brain, and I willingly embrace all of the teachings of the Church (and yes, that includes all of the controversial sexual teachings as well. Oh, and by the way, I also believe in social justice and in tolerance – truth and love are not in conflict you know). The portrayal of orthodox Catholics as fearful, unthinking drones is deeply offensive and profoundly uninformed. Perhaps that was the case with a certain older generation; it is certainly not the case with those of my generation. Jo O'Sullivan April 30th, 2012 at 8:26 am “Unthinking zombies”, “unthinking drones”, Tracy and Peter, I am sorry if you read my article as accusing the Catholics in a future “cleaned out” church as being such.HAS THIS WOMAN READ WHAT SHE WROTE? It was never my intention to be offensive BUT YOU WERE OFFENSIVE WHETHER YOU INTENDED IT OR NOT, BECAUSE YOU ARE TOO INTELLECTUALLY LAZY TO UNDERSTAND THE VIEWPOINT OF THOSE WITH WHOM YOU DISAGREE. In fact I refer to such Catholics as having a certain world view and I suggest that it’s fortunate for all if children of such parents “come to the same conclusions as their parents did”. Does that not show that I recognise that these are thinking, reflective people? YOU ALSO SAID THERE IS NO POINT IN THINKING IF THE CONCLUSION IS LAID OUT IN ADVANCE - SO THERE IS NO THINKING IN A PHYSICS CLASS BECAUSE BASIC PHYSICS CONCLUSIONS ARE KNOWN ALREADY? AND THE "FORTUNATE" BIT REFERS ONLY TO THE ABSENCE OF CONFLICT BETWEEN PARENTS AND CHILDREN; IF THE PARENTS WERE NEO-NAZIS THEIR "WORLDVIEW" MIGHT BE DESCRIBED IN EXACTLY THE SAME TERMS SHE USES, THOUGH I DOUBT IF SHE WOULD SAY THAT DISAGREEMENT THERE WAS TRAGIC And Val, I daresay you’re right about certain elements of the press being ready to jump on anything that smacks of a spiritual code, where values like upholding certain moral standards and the suppressing of any selfish impulses conflict with their own superficial, hedonistic thrusts. BUT SHE CAN'T BE BOTHERED TO THINK OUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS FOR WHAT SHE IS SAYING But my fear remains. I cannot see eye to eye with thinking, reflective people who believe that any institution can have the authority to order other thinking, reflective people “You must believe this. You must accept this and you can’t even talk about it. If you cannot force your conscience into accepting it, you are wrong and you don’t belong here”. GOOD; SO YOU DON'T ACCEPT THAT A SCIENTIFIC SOCIETY IS ENTITLED TO EXCLUDE YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONISTS, WHO SEE THEMSELVES AS "THINKING AND REFLECTIVE"? YOU DON'T ACCEPT THAT RACISTS WHO SEE THEMSELVES AS "THINKING AND REFLECTIVE" (AND QUITE A FEW OF THEM SEE THEMSELVES IN EXACTLY THAT WAY - THEY ARE OFTEN QUITE CLEVER IN A TWISTED MANNER) SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM CERTAIN POSITIONS WHERE THEY CAN PUT THEIR RACIAL VIEWS INTO PRACTICE? YOU DON'T THINK THE LABOUR PARTY WERE ENTITLED TO KICK OUT THE MILITANT TENDENCY, WHO WERE USING LABOUR PARTY MEMBERSHIP TO WRECK THAT PARTY FOR THE SAKE OF THEIR OWN AGENDA? YOU DON'T THINK THAT VOLUNTARY SOCIETIES ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE AND ENFORCE THEIR OWN RULES? Does that not scare you? NO - IT'S UNTHINKING SLOGANISING LIKE YOURS THAT SCARES ME And, if that way of thinking and operating continues to retain ascendency within Catholicism, does it not mean that the Catholic Church will become a place where, despite all its incredibly good work for social justice (and again, Tracy, I fully acknowledge that aspect of the church’s work AND YOU ACCUSED THEE ORTHODOX OF NEGLECTING IT– I’m still here, after all!), it has ceased to be catholic and all- loving and all-embracing in the way Jesus asked us to be? THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES, AND THE MONEYCHANGERS, MIGHT BEG TO DIFFER In the light of ever-developing understanding of the human condition AS COMPARED TO WHAT?, ever-deepening awareness of the complexity of human relationships (sexual and otherwise), surely it is only right to have open and honest dialogue – a dialogue which includes diversity of views – not a dialogue wherein boundaries are already marked out and freedom of thought and expression is restricted. DIALOGUE IS IMPOSSIBLE IF THE BOUNDARIES ARE NOT ESTABLISHED FIRST Is that not what we’re doing here on this site and is it not great that we’re able to do so? NO - YOU ARE ENGAGING IN GROUPTHINK AND PHARISAIC SELF-IMPORTANCE I am not asking that every Catholic shares my way of thinking YES YOU ARE, I am fully accepting of the fact that there are good, sincere, honest, reflective people who want to follow the teachings of the Magisterium to the letter. What I’m asking is that I can continue to be a Catholic with MY beliefs JUST LIKE THOSE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO CONTINUE AS VEGETARIANS AND EAT MEAT. My article was in response to the view that people like me did not belong in the Catholic Church – and that hurt me TRUTH CAN BE PAINFUL. Like Val, I too hope that a way forward can be found where we can all feel valued and accepted within our Catholic family SO BY CALLING THE ORTHODOX MINDLESS ZOMBIES YOU ARE HELPING US TO FEEL VALUED AND ACCEPTED? DO YOU LISTEN TO YOURSELF AT ALL?. END
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 8, 2012 17:12:03 GMT
An English Catholic priest-blogger on the ACPI offerimustibidomine.blogspot.com/2012/05/priests-are-revolting.htmlEXTRACT Today in Dublin the Association of Catholic Priests will meet, with a membership claiming to represent a quarter of priests in Ireland, according to Radio 4's "Today" programme this morning. They include among their objectives: allowing the divorced to remarry; the election of bishops; change in liturgical language and practice to be "inclusive and accessible to all"; married clergy and the ordination of women; and a general liberalisation of the Church's teaching on a variety of matters to fall into line with norms and mores of secular society. You can read their "Objectives" here couched in seemingly innocuous and polite terms but in fact calling for a revolution. Some might think that a large group of priests calling for such a revolt has come out of nowhere quite suddenly but I think you would find many similar views long held by many priests in the UK as well. My own experience is that they are not uncommon views among many priests. Those of us who try to hold to the Church's official teaching have long been branded as "traditional", "conservative" and "reactionary" precisely because the centre "opinion" has long ago shifted to a stance far from what you will find actually written in the Code, the Catechism, the rubrics, or orthodox teaching. These revolutionary views have been propagated at the seminaries and disseminated in parishes to the laity, quietly and unobtrusively for years without being challenged by the hierarchy - and in fact, often encouraged. Now in Ireland they are organising and banding together to formally lobby for these now entrenched revolutionary views. So prevalent that they now feel strong enough to come out fully into the open and make an outright challenge to Orthodoxy. END (but go to the original and read the comments).
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 8, 2012 23:04:55 GMT
Fraternity of St Genesius blogspot reveals that the ACPI has been censoring some of its own members in the Diocese of Clogher who claim (quite respectfully I might add and with an effort to distinguish between what they see as good and bad) that the ACPI are unjustified in claiming all its members support its initiatives and that the leadership have got some of their priorities wrong. h/t to Caroline McCamley thefraternityofstgenesius.blogspot.com/2012/05/clogher-acp-meeting.htmlEXTRACT On several ocassions I have tried to post comments on the ACP website. But I have been censored. :-( poor little me! Interestingly though, they are also censoring their own members! HYPOCRITES A comment over at Ex Umbris Et Imaginibus, brought me to something interesting. ACP unhappiness appears to be surfacing. Here is a link to an interesting post, which was posted on May 7th. The post has been removed from the homepage of the ACP site, but it is still live (for now). It seems that the ACP appear are censoring themselves!! Even their own members are not allowed to express difference of opinion. www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2012/05/clogher-diocesan-acp-meeting/On second thoughts. I include the entire text below, (in case it disappears!). 07MAYCLOGHER DIOCESAN ACP MEETING Ameeting of Clogher ACP took place in Clones on Wednesday 2nd May. Nine Priests attended, six sent apologies. >We gave most of our meeting to reflect on how we as members of ACP in Clogher find ourselves in relation to ACP Ireland at the present time. We have mixed feelings about the kind of publicity that ACP has occasioned recently. We are not convinced that the issues of mandatory celibacy for priests and the ordination of women, which have been a focus for much of the recent debate, are the key issues for our life and ministry at the present time. We were agreed that obedience to the central teaching office of the Church in essential matters is an important value. At the same time, we believe that respectful disagreement and considered debate is part of the way that the Church clarifies what is truly essential in a changing cultural context. In this regard, we support Fr Brian D’Arcy CP who is based within our diocese, and who has continued his significant ministry in journalism, subject to certain oversight provisions. We regret that some voices from within the ACP have not been moderate and temperate in putting forward views which are sincerely and passionately held. In the exchange of views and letters to the papers, opposing views have sometimes been dismissed as representing a minority position which is characterised as reactionary. It is our view that minority positions from whatever stance also deserve a respectful hearing. We accept that the mass media responds most readily to what is controversial. Especially in a context where Church morale is low, and where for many, their default mode is to be on the defensive, it is not easy to maintain a thoughtful stance and to avoid the temptation towards point-scoring. Trumping one’s opponents in an argument may win cheers from the supporting side, but it seldom wins over the hearts of those who view things differently. We believe that priests in Ireland at the present time can best be served by an ACP that is prepared to engage as respectfully as possible with the wide range of opinion that exists among priests and people. We are deeply grateful for the role that ACP played in supporting Fr Kevin Reynolds, and we are encouraged by their on-going engagement with the bishops in relation to protocols to ensure natural justice for priests who have been the subject of unsubstantiated accusations. None of our members present at the meeting was persuaded that the recent survey commissioned by ACP served a useful purpose in furthering the mission of the Gospel. One of the aims of the ACP outlined at its inaugural meeting was to foster the development of well-prepared spokespersons who would be available to engage with the media on the range of issues that repeatedly arise. We would like to see this proposal taken further. In our view it is less than honest to cite membership figures for the ACP in support of initiatives and public statements that may not have wide backing across the membership. In this regard we reflected at some length on the consultation deficit that appears to be emerging in ACP, in relation to some of the more strident positions that have been espoused by some of those who have spoken for ACP. We accept that this may be conditioned by the web-based communication that is a feature of the organisation, when many of our priest colleagues who are ACP members are not web-savvy. Our conversation returned more than once to the issue of where the Church stands at present in relation to the legacy of Vatican II. For all of the members present, this remains a central concern. It was this overarching aspect of the platform originally set out by the ACP founding members that particularly drew us towards the Association. Only in robust communion can that legacy be more deeply owned and more widely shared. A final reflection: One piece that is sadly wanting in the Irish Catholic Church to date is an active and effective Council for Clergy. This part of the administrative structure set up by the Irish Episcopal Conference is a missing link, and not only viv-à-vis real dialogue with the ACP. If the Irish bishops truly value their priests activating the Council for Clergy is a matter of real urgency. Our next gathering is on Wednesday 27th June in Clones. END Here are the comments on the original post (which the St Genesius blog does not reproduce). Two support the Clogher priests (one, interestingly, is from a self-declared non-Catholic). The third by MArgaret Lee is a good example of how some ACPI sympathisers dish out criticism freely but can't take it and assume anyone who disagrees with them on anything must be in bad faith: EXTRACT David Miller May 7th, 2012 at 11:25 pm I live in the UK and I am not a catholic. Today (7th May) an item on the BBC (Radio 4 at 7.00pm) referred to a meeting of ACP in Dublin. It represented ACP as having 850 members who oppose traditional catholic teaching on various issues and support the ordination of women. The report of the Clogher Diocesan meeting shows that ACP is more diverse and not exactly as the BBC portrays it to be. But then the BBC is well-known for its bias against the Catholic Church. Colin Prendergast May 8th, 2012 at 10:38 am At last, a straightforward and honest statement for sanity. These voices need to be heard by the ACP as a whole. Above all the Church has a desperate need for internal reconciliation at this time. This can only come through a process that begins with personal conversion and ends in the person of Jesus Christ and His Church. Sadly, many in the ACP have embarked on a road that logically can only lead to schism. There is and never will be mileage in denying definitive doctrine in the name of the spirit of Vatican 2. Please folks, read Lumen Gentium para. 25 and ask yourselves honestly if you are prepared to accept what the Council really teaches. Margaret Lee May 8th, 2012 at 2:58 pm I have read the report of the Clogher ACP meeting and, I must say that they sound more like a sermon than a report of a meeting. Can you (whoever reported) say how the recent survey conducted by the ACP did not promote the gospel. I have often pondered opinion poles and, prior to many an election, I hoped that they might be wrong! I have learned that they usually reflect what people are thinking and, right now, the people seem to be saying that the Catholic Church does not have anything significant to say to them. As an ordinary member of the parish community, this saddens me. Just as a matter of interest, I would like to know how many of the 9 priests present wanted a council for clergy? END
|
|