|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Nov 3, 2020 8:49:43 GMT
I do worry very much about the growth of an "alternative magisterium" myself. I get more alarmed the more I see how rhetoric is hardening. It seems like, when Pope Francis releases any document, many people turn to Church Militant, Taylor Marshall and that fellow in the dicky-bow (Michael E. Jones?) to interpret it for them.
It's easy to overlook, once again, the "online bubble" effect and to exaggerate the number of ordinary Mass-going Catholics who are exasperated with the Pope and the bishops.
Recently on social media I made several attempts to defend the ordinary Magisterium, to argue the importance of docility, and to suggest that the Pope is simply a shepherd going after the lost sheep. It got such a poor reaction that I'm hesitant to air such views again!
My own views on this matter have changed, for lots of reasons. I came to think that narrowing papal authority to the point many have narrowed it now makes the papacy something of a fiasco. It really seems that many have dispensed themselves from listening to him unless and until he propounds a dogma. That path seems to lead to doctrinal anarchy, in my view
Of course, I may be wrong. One thing I really dislike about Catholic discourse today is the hostility that is generated. One side calls anyone who has reservations about anything the Pope says or does "Francis haters". The other side often dismisses anyone who is respectful of the Pope as a modernist.
Now, I've been reading a lot of Church history recently, and given that papal elections were often marked by street battles and riots, you could say this is nothing new. But it doesn't mean it's good!
|
|
|
Post by rogerbuck on Nov 3, 2020 10:06:25 GMT
I do worry very much about the growth of an "alternative magisterium" myself. I get more alarmed the more I see how rhetoric is hardening. It seems like, when Pope Francis releases any document, many people turn to Church Militant, Taylor Marshall and that fellow in the dicky-bow (Michael E. Jones?) to interpret it for them. It's easy to overlook, once again, the "online bubble" effect and to exaggerate the number of ordinary Mass-going Catholics who are exasperated with the Pope and the bishops. Recently on social media I made several attempts to defend the ordinary Magisterium, to argue the importance of docility, and to suggest that the Pope is simply a shepherd going after the lost sheep. It got such a poor reaction that I'm hesitant to air such views again! My own views on this matter have changed, for lots of reasons. I came to think that narrowing papal authority to the point many have narrowed it now makes the papacy something of a fiasco. It really seems that many have dispensed themselves from listening to him unless and until he propounds a dogma. That path seems to lead to doctrinal anarchy, in my view Of course, I may be wrong. One thing I really dislike about Catholic discourse today is the hostility that is generated. One side calls anyone who has reservations about anything the Pope says or does "Francis haters". The other side often dismisses anyone who is respectful of the Pope as a modernist. Now, I've been reading a lot of Church history recently, and given that papal elections were often marked by street battles and riots, you could say this is nothing new. But it doesn't mean it's good! Well said, Mal! And now I am going to say something that may upset some people re what you say of "hardening" in this: I do worry very much about the growth of an "alternative magisterium" myself. I get more alarmed the more I see how rhetoric is hardening. It seems like, when Pope Francis releases any document, many people turn to Church Militant, Taylor Marshall and that fellow in the dicky-bow (Michael E. Jones?) to interpret it for them. . . . Recently on social media I made several attempts to defend the ordinary Magisterium, to argue the importance of docility My own perspective as an American in Europe who has lived in non-Anglosphere Europe and follows France closely cannot help but suggest to me how very American this "alternative magisterium" is. CM, TM the guy with the dicky bow etc etc are all Americans. And the "new Magisterium" that people see just has this overwhelmingly American quality you don't find so much outside the Anglosphere. And yet I still say SedNomini testifies to something of extraordinary hope here which must not be forgotten! Paradox!
|
|
|
Post by rogerbuck on Nov 3, 2020 10:12:23 GMT
I want to add a post that I made elsewhere to the above, re the Pope and civil unions.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Nov 3, 2020 11:26:42 GMT
My own perspective as an American in Europe who has lived in non-Anglosphere Europe and follows France closely cannot help but suggest to me how very American this "alternative magisterium" is. CM, TM the guy with the dicky bow etc etc are all Americans. And the "new Magisterium" that people see just has this overwhelmingly American quality you don't find so much outside the Anglosphere. But don't you have the whole spectrum of opinion coming from America, in general as well as in Catholic affairs? You have Church Militant, but you also have America magazine, Catholic Answers, EWTN, and so forth. EWTN seems to have taken a position broadly similar to the Catholic Herald in Britain-- not particularly enthusiastic about Pope Francis but not as oppositional as Church Militant etc. In Ireland the Catholic Voice and the Irish Catholic seem to take different approaches as well. While all the little devotional magazines published by the religious orders seem totally pro-Francis
|
|
|
Post by cato on Nov 3, 2020 12:52:50 GMT
My own perspective as an American in Europe who has lived in non-Anglosphere Europe and follows France closely cannot help but suggest to me how very American this "alternative magisterium" is. CM, TM the guy with the dicky bow etc etc are all Americans. And the "new Magisterium" that people see just has this overwhelmingly American quality you don't find so much outside the Anglosphere. But don't you have the whole spectrum of opinion coming from America, in general as well as in Catholic affairs? You have Church Militant, but you also have America magazine, Catholic Answers, EWTN, and so forth. EWTN seems to have taken a position broadly similar to the Catholic Herald in Britain-- not particularly enthusiastic about Pope Francis but not as oppositional as Church Militant etc. In Ireland the Catholic Voice and the Irish Catholic seem to take different approaches as well. While all the little devotional magazines published by the religious orders seem totally pro-Francis The Vatican (I presume the press office to be precise) has come out a couple of days ago and contradicted the popes recent approval of civil unions! So now we are in , and not for the first time in this papacy in a major doctrinal mess were the laity are told by some church people nothing has changed but the BBC, Fr James Martin SJ and gay rights activists say otherwise. And Francis smiles and says nothing to clarify things. So what if many of Francis critics are American? Cardinal Raymond Burke and Fr Weinandy OFM(appointed and sacked by Francis from the International Theological Commission) are major American theological figures who have spoken out on major doctrinal problems with this Papacy. They are not loonies obsessed with masonry or anti Semites (Michael Jones). Similarly off the top of my head Aidan Nichols OP the English Ecumenical theologian and writer and Cardinal Muller German theologian and former CDF head have written about serious doctrinal errors in this papacy. The position of Catholics who insist on unconditional loyalty to Pope Francis is bizarre. A pope can be in error. Several have been previously in the past though usually in pretty arcane matters. At what point would loyalty to Francis cease ? If he declared there was no hell? If he denied the divine nature of Christ? I use these examples deliberately as deliberate ambiguity has been created around these issues by friends of Francis, who may not be friends of the faith. The popes job is not to create confusion. He is failing in one of his core roles. I can't think of any pope previously who has done this on this scale. We are in a major major church crisis caused by this pope. Period.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Nov 3, 2020 13:07:51 GMT
But can a Pope be in error when he speaks as Pope? None of the previous instances I've heard really seem to approach what Francis is accused of.
For instance, his position on the death penalty seems clearly intended as authoritative. He put it in the Catechism. But there is still dissent on this issue. I guess that is one of the things that unsettled me
I don't feel we really have to take any position at all on the civil unions comment. Personally I am going to focus on what the Pope says in encyclicals, pastoral letters, homilies. These clearly represent his deliberate views. Yes, I too wish he would stop making these throwaway comments.
If the Pope were to actually deny a dogma of the Faith... I can't imagine it. Yes, in that case I would consider him in error, but in all honesty I think my faith in Catholicism might be shattered as it would seem to stand or fall on papal infallibility. What would "upon this rock" mean then?
|
|
|
Post by rogerbuck on Nov 3, 2020 16:02:23 GMT
My own perspective as an American in Europe who has lived in non-Anglosphere Europe and follows France closely cannot help but suggest to me how very American this "alternative magisterium" is. CM, TM the guy with the dicky bow etc etc are all Americans. And the "new Magisterium" that people see just has this overwhelmingly American quality you don't find so much outside the Anglosphere. But don't you have the whole spectrum of opinion coming from America, in general as well as in Catholic affairs? You have Church Militant, but you also have America magazine, Catholic Answers, EWTN, and so forth. EWTN seems to have taken a position broadly similar to the Catholic Herald in Britain-- not particularly enthusiastic about Pope Francis but not as oppositional as Church Militant etc. In Ireland the Catholic Voice and the Irish Catholic seem to take different approaches as well. While all the little devotional magazines published by the religious orders seem totally pro-Francis Quickly, Mal, I agree: we DO have "the whole spectrum of opinion coming from America". But that doesn't invalidate the point I am (clumsily?) trying to make. I am concerned with the whole spectrum of Anglo-American perspectives flooding Ireland to the marginalisation of her own voice, as well as the voice of other cultures in the Christian West. So I'm concerned that Ireland only ever hears the Anglo-American Right, the Anglo-American Left, the Anglo-American New Age . . . whatever. I lack time to comment more, but I paste something here from St Margaret Mary Alacoque regarding her graces from the Sacred Heart of Jesus. I do this, Mal, in support of your uncomfortable, courageous-in-this climate stand for docility and obedience. And I'm adding bold: This does not mean that I do not understand all the tremendous pain and anger that many Catholics feel towards the present Vatican. I understand it very well, as my last post above may demonstrate . . .
|
|
|
Post by rogerbuck on Nov 3, 2020 16:07:31 GMT
One more thing, Mal. I think one of your great strengths is that you know so much about the Saints and also Church history. I am quickly adding one more crosspost here - originally at Fish Eaters:
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Nov 3, 2020 16:28:54 GMT
But don't you have the whole spectrum of opinion coming from America, in general as well as in Catholic affairs? You have Church Militant, but you also have America magazine, Catholic Answers, EWTN, and so forth. EWTN seems to have taken a position broadly similar to the Catholic Herald in Britain-- not particularly enthusiastic about Pope Francis but not as oppositional as Church Militant etc. In Ireland the Catholic Voice and the Irish Catholic seem to take different approaches as well. While all the little devotional magazines published by the religious orders seem totally pro-Francis Quickly, Mal, I agree: we DO have "the whole spectrum of opinion coming from America". But that doesn't invalidate the point I am (clumsily?) trying to make. I am concerned with the whole spectrum of Anglo-American perspectives flooding Ireland to the marginalisation of her own voice, as well as the voice of other cultures in the Christian West. So I'm concerned that Ireland only ever hears the Anglo-American Right, the Anglo-American Left, the Anglo-American New Age . . . whatever. I lack time to comment more, but I paste something here from St Margaret Mary Alacoque regarding her graces from the Sacred Heart of Jesus. I do this, Mal, in support of your uncomfortable, courageous-in-this climate stand for docility and obedience. And I'm adding bold: This does not mean that I do not understand all the tremendous pain and anger that many Catholics feel towards the present Vatican. I understand it very well, as my last post above may demonstrate . . . Thanks, Roger. I would not at all claim to be an expert on saints or Church history, I imagine most informed Catholics, and certainly most people on this forum, know at least as much as I do on these subjects. Church history is a vast field so perhaps we all have our different interests within that. Regarding civil unions and children... It's hard to comment since there is no clarity on what the Pope actually supports and I've found it hard to learn what he supported in Buenos Aires. But it may be the case that he is taking the same sort of realistic approach the early Church had to take to slavery. Homosexuality is now a feature of our society and perhaps he is just trying to address that reality without changing doctrine-- something he constantly insists he is not doing. But we don't even know where he stands so it seems to me like it is all speculation.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Mar 23, 2021 19:42:30 GMT
I was reading a Chesterton letter to the Catholic Herald from 1936, from his collection 'The Well and The Shallows' which I thought might be relevant to this thread in that he attempts to demonstrate that The Protestant West and the Catholic West has a slightly different take on their respective versions of totalitarian states. All this was happening around the time of Mussolini and Hitler. Here's a quote:
"When puritans abolish ritualism, it means there shall be no more ritual. When prohibitionists abolished beer, they swore that a whole new generation would grow up and never know the taste of it. When Protestants took to the solution of Socialism, most of them do not merely mean to attack the contemporary congestion called capitalism; they mean to abolish for ever the very idea of private property.
Thus there is a fanatical quality, sweeping, final, almost suicidal, in Protestant reforms which there is not even in Catholic repressions. Once Puritanism pervaded America, once Prussianism pervaded Germany, there appeared a new type of law; sterilization or compulsory eugenics, from which even the dictators of the Latin tradition would shrink."
Now this may somewhat tap in to What Roger sees as the subtle difference between the Anglo Saxon world and the France and Spain of Catholic Europe. A type of utopianism, or millenarianism popular in Protestantism.
I'm wondering if what Chesterton says has truth but is perhaps too sweeping. Could the French Revolution for example be defined as almost 'puritanical' in the Protestant way, yet it took place in Catholic France? Or was the French Revolution a product of English freemasonry as claimed by many?
|
|
|
Post by cato on Mar 24, 2021 13:59:27 GMT
I was reading a Chesterton letter to the Catholic Herald from 1936, from his collection 'The Well and The Shallows' which I thought might be relevant to this thread in that he attempts to demonstrate that The Protestant West and the Catholic West has a slightly different take on their respective versions of totalitarian states. All this was happening around the time of Mussolini and Hitler. Here's a quote: "When puritans abolish ritualism, it means there shall be no more ritual. When prohibitionists abolished beer, they swore that a whole new generation would grow up and never know the taste of it. When Protestants took to the solution of Socialism, most of them do not merely mean to attack the contemporary congestion called capitalism; they mean to abolish for ever the very idea of private property.
Thus there is a fanatical quality, sweeping, final, almost suicidal, in Protestant reforms which there is not even in Catholic repressions. Once Puritanism pervaded America, once Prussianism pervaded Germany, there appeared a new type of law; sterilization or compulsory eugenics, from which even the dictators of the Latin tradition would shrink."Now this may somewhat tap in to What Roger sees as the subtle difference between the Anglo Saxon world and the France and Spain of Catholic Europe. A type of utopianism, or millenarianism popular in Protestantism. I'm wondering if what Chesterton says has truth but is perhaps too sweeping. Could the French Revolution for example be defined as almost 'puritanical' in the Protestant way, yet it took place in Catholic France? Or was the French Revolution a product of English freemasonry as claimed by many? Am not too sure sweeping generalisations are much use in this regard Assisi. Catholic states either remained Neutral like Spain (which sent the Blue division as part of the Nazi invasion of the USSR) and Ireland. Other catholic states like France and Croatia covered themselves in shame and disgrace. The winning alliance was a union of the anglo-US (historically protestant) and atheistic Russian communism. Admittedly many Russians fought for mother Russia rather than love of Stalin and Stalin himself did tone down his persecution of Christianity during the war and used Russian orthodoxy to stir up Russian patriotism. Am reading Simon Schamas Citizens on the French revolution at present. There was a lot of English ideological influence on the French intelligensia but it was rather open and widely publicised in pamphlets much admirered ironically by French aristocrats and progressive clergy. It's a good lock down read.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Mar 25, 2021 12:52:05 GMT
I was reading a Chesterton letter to the Catholic Herald from 1936, from his collection 'The Well and The Shallows' which I thought might be relevant to this thread in that he attempts to demonstrate that The Protestant West and the Catholic West has a slightly different take on their respective versions of totalitarian states. All this was happening around the time of Mussolini and Hitler. Here's a quote: "When puritans abolish ritualism, it means there shall be no more ritual. When prohibitionists abolished beer, they swore that a whole new generation would grow up and never know the taste of it. When Protestants took to the solution of Socialism, most of them do not merely mean to attack the contemporary congestion called capitalism; they mean to abolish for ever the very idea of private property.
Thus there is a fanatical quality, sweeping, final, almost suicidal, in Protestant reforms which there is not even in Catholic repressions. Once Puritanism pervaded America, once Prussianism pervaded Germany, there appeared a new type of law; sterilization or compulsory eugenics, from which even the dictators of the Latin tradition would shrink."Now this may somewhat tap in to What Roger sees as the subtle difference between the Anglo Saxon world and the France and Spain of Catholic Europe. A type of utopianism, or millenarianism popular in Protestantism. I'm wondering if what Chesterton says has truth but is perhaps too sweeping. Could the French Revolution for example be defined as almost 'puritanical' in the Protestant way, yet it took place in Catholic France? Or was the French Revolution a product of English freemasonry as claimed by many? Am not too sure sweeping generalisations are much use in this regard Assisi. Catholic states either remained Neutral like Spain (which sent the Blue division as part of the Nazi invasion of the USSR) and Ireland. Other catholic states like France and Croatia covered themselves in shame and disgrace. The winning alliance was a union of the anglo-US (historically protestant) and atheistic Russian communism. Admittedly many Russians fought for mother Russia rather than love of Stalin and Stalin himself did tone down his persecution of Christianity during the war and used Russian orthodoxy to stir up Russian patriotism. Am reading Simon Schamas Citizens on the French revolution at present. There was a lot of English ideological influence on the French intelligensia but it was rather open and widely publicised in pamphlets much admirered ironically by French aristocrats and progressive clergy. It's a good lock down read. I'd be interested in knowing what conclusion Schama (and you) come to as regards the origins of the revolution. A very interesting book, and a good read is Paul Johnson's book 'Intellectuals' (1988) which looks at biographical details of key recent thinkers who have influenced modernity (Shelley, Marx, Tolstoy, Bertrand Russell, Hemmingway and Sartre among others). What is frightening about these 'intellectuals' is that in their private lives they were often hypocritical, vain, manipulative, cruel and violent. More often than not their 'ideas' were couched in terms of freedom, equality and helping the poor, while they were intensely cruel and tyrannical to many of those who came into contact with them. Rousseau for example was a big influence on Robespierre and others in the French Revolution. Robespierre said of Rousseau that "Rousseau is the one man who, through the loftiness of his soul and the grandeur of his character, showed himself worthy of the role of teacher of mankind”. Yet Rousseau abandoned 5 of his children by his servant/mistress to a home for abandoned children, where only an estimated 5% of children ever made it to maturity such were the awful conditions at that time. Yet Rousseau's philosophy included the education of children by the State at an early age. Perhaps this philosophy owed itself in part to the fact that he gave up his own 5 new born children to the State in the form of the Children's home and this convoluted connection and direction owed itself to a guilty conscience.
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Mar 25, 2021 15:50:27 GMT
Several among the most influential have definitely let their personal affairs affect the "ideas" in an important way. As a sidenote I found in biography how composer Richard Strauss and his friends were somehow surprisingly much into Schopenhauer in the early years, roughly around the 1880s when he apparently was much in evidence all over Germany as also the ever present cultural dignitary of the time Freud, shaping "ideas" for a whole generation it seems. Thinking about Strauss, he was a Modernist musically but certainly one raised in the grandest veins of Tradition ("Haydn, Mozart, Mendelssohn") and, probably, pursuing Modernity most of all as a space for exalted freedom and pleasure as well as a cultural adventure. Compared to the other names mentioned, and to which many more could be added like Nietsczhe and later ones, what they most had in common may even prove to be, broadly, the utterly personal link to the source labeled Modernism. Their personal feelings meant more than the philosophy in such sense. It was not the ideas themselves that was the root problem then. Often the same happens now, not only in politics or art but more or less every field. The Zeitgeist can always be taken as the thing with which you can explain away any consequences of personal sins, only regretted in hindsight, actually what influences the most but naturally only there as hidden from the public surface. If experimentations be allowed, you have a poetic license to do anything. So Modernism is still working a one-sweep-covers-all kind of shield. It might sum up most of the situation we have to face by the *global city* (rather that than Village irl sadly) of today. When the actual sins are cut off from both narrative and experience of living, what remains is like a shadow of the fundamentals of the real problem. Which makes it impossible to solve in the doubtful bargain! Left for the time being, would be only to wait or pray for conversion...
|
|
|
Post by cato on Mar 25, 2021 16:23:20 GMT
This thread must be the most meandering/changing the topic thread ever. Have a glance at how we hop from subject to subject. It reminds me of certain bar stool conversations. Yes. Remember those?
|
|
|
Post by cato on Mar 25, 2021 16:27:16 GMT
Several among the most influential have definitely let their personal affairs affect the "ideas" in an important way. As a sidenote I found in biography how composer Richard Strauss and his friends were somehow surprisingly much into Schopenhauer in the early years, roughly around the 1880s when he apparently was much in evidence all over Germany as also the ever present cultural dignitary of the time Freud, shaping "ideas" for a whole generation it seems. Thinking about Strauss, he was a Modernist musically but certainly one raised in the grandest veins of Tradition ("Haydn, Mozart, Mendelssohn") and, probably, pursuing Modernity most of all as a space for exalted freedom and pleasure as well as a cultural adventure. Compared to the other names mentioned, and to which many more could be added like Nietsczhe and later ones, what they most had in common may even prove to be, broadly, the utterly personal link to the source labeled Modernism. Their personal feelings meant more than the philosophy in such sense. It was not the ideas themselves that was the root problem then. Often the same happens now, not only in politics or art but more or less every field. The Zeitgeist can always be taken as the thing with which you can explain away any consequences of personal sins, only regretted in hindsight, actually what influences the most but naturally only there as hidden from the public surface. If experimentations be allowed, you have a poetic license to do anything. So Modernism is still working a one-sweep-covers-all kind of shield. It might sum up most of the situation we have to face by the *global city* (rather that than Village irl sadly) of today. When the actual sins are cut off from both narrative and experience of living, what remains is like a shadow of the fundamentals of the real problem. Which makes it impossible to solve in the doubtful bargain! Left for the time being, would be only to wait or pray for conversion... I had a former house mate (unlucky in love at the time) who loved reading aloud late at night Schopenhauer's less than flattering remarks about women. I wonder has he been deplatformed in modern universities as he was a genuine bona fide misogynist?
|
|