Jump to content

Two news items re: Latter-day saints and catholics


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Calm said:

What is happening in Germany...is that seen as problematic for the Church in your (Catholics here) view as it is being written up by some?  A possible schism in the future over gay marriage?

https://apnews.com/article/europe-lifestyle-religion-f94e1e634f3b80e209d82ce29927deab

I may be absolutely wrong but I don't see this as problematic as dealing with sacramental issues. I am not in any way trying to downplay the issues therein. I'm still newly Catholic. My biggest issues deal with the traditional Mass (and theology) being obscured by Vatican II and Novus Ordo. For example, within the US Episcopal construct they deal with Prayer C of the Book of Common Prayer as well as Enriching Our Worship (EOW) which technically stand as heretical. Not sure if this makes sense but I tried. I still default to Rory and Jesse.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
23 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

From the first story about the cantor:

Those are kind words and I am glad that he is finding greater faith at Mass.

I like how he pointed out that all of the senses are used to center your experience on Christ. To use some Platonic thinking (go away, Mark :P), the good, the true, and the beautiful all lead us to God. It's one reason I attend traditional Latin Mass -- the beautiful is focused on, not forgotten (or even worse, despised) as too often happens with the new Mass.

When I was serving on my mission, our 6-man district went to what I guess was a "high mass" at Christmas. I believe it was termed a "midnight mass". This was in Germany in 1973. It was bewildering and beautiful in nearly every sense. Bewildering because we didn't know for sure what was going on at any given point, but beautiful because of the sensory input you mention. It was also inspirational -- there is no doubt at all that the focus was on Christ. It was very well attended. We got some suspicious looks from a few folks who I guess recognized that we were Mormon missionaries. But all in all, it was quite a treat!

23 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I imagine LDS have similar experiences with beauty inside the temple. Is there music as part of the temple ceremonies? If so, is it like sacrament meeting music? I imagine you probably don't use incense...

The temple ceremonies are actually quite bare of extraneous elements such as music -- and yes, no incense! This is because these ceremonies are not worship services, strictly speaking. They are what one might call "ordinance services". Except for individual ordinance work for living patrons receiving their own ordinances, the vast majority of the work (such as baptism for the dead) is being done through proxy recipients for deceased people who are not physically present. So it tends to be efficient. But the architecture and fairly simple but elegant decoration do good work towards maintaining a reverential and worshipful attitude. I imagine you've seen photos of the interiors of temples.

I probably make it sound extremely prosaic, but I, at least, get a feeling of reverence, solemnity, and divine purpose there that more than makes up for any lack of "pomp", as it were.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On 5/13/2021 at 7:37 AM, MiserereNobis said:

The white shirts, ties, and bicycle helmets will never defeat us! Especially since 34 new recruits just swore their oaths a few days ago:

cq5dam.thumbnail.cropped.1500.844.jpeg

Hey- somebody has to keep the armor making industry alive!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
On 5/13/2021 at 7:45 AM, MiserereNobis said:

(go away, Mark :P)

😫

;)

 

Link to post
On 5/13/2021 at 2:52 PM, Calm said:

What is happening in Germany...is that seen as problematic for the Church in your (Catholics here) view as it is being written up by some?  A possible schism in the future over gay marriage?

https://apnews.com/article/europe-lifestyle-religion-f94e1e634f3b80e209d82ce29927deab

I tend to not follow too much of this. The Catholic Church is huge and there is always something heretical or schismatic going on somewhere. Having said that, though, the German Church has tended to push the envelope on things since Vatican II, so this doesn't surprise me. I don't know if it portends a schism. That would be huge. But then again, many Germans broke away 500 years ago, too...

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

I tend to not follow too much of this. The Catholic Church is huge and there is always something heretical or schismatic going on somewhere. Having said that, though, the German Church has tended to push the envelope on things since Vatican II, so this doesn't surprise me. I don't know if it portends a schism. That would be huge. But then again, many Germans broke away 500 years ago, too...

Interesting observation! Because German philosophy is very much based in human experience, even since Kant, above any kind of transcendental metaphysics.

(Nietzsche, Heidegger, Marx etc. And all the horses they rode in on! ) 🤯

Thinking about it, maybe Luther fits in that company too, as a "democratizer" of Christianity....

Hmmmmm....

There's a kind of anti-clericalism there ....

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

I tend to not follow too much of this. The Catholic Church is huge and there is always something heretical or schismatic going on somewhere. Having said that, though, the German Church has tended to push the envelope on things since Vatican II, so this doesn't surprise me. I don't know if it portends a schism. That would be huge. But then again, many Germans broke away 500 years ago, too...

Some of the scions of that are alive and well, some hang out on this board and have hands in many pots.  Anyway, know much about what happened after Martin Luther i.e the 30 years war?  People in the USA forget a lot of people fled here because of that.  My understanding of Germany is the church doesn't care if someone has a civil ceremony, they draw the line at a sacramental marriage.  While I have a Catholic baptism cert I didn't grow up catholic so I miss some of the finer political points.  I can't help but wonder if this is one of those things Catholics here screech more about than need be.  I know a lot of folks don't like Pope Francis, I agree with him on what he said about how Catholics here have to be more than just pro life, they have to help the least of these and those outside the womb who are vulnerable.  Dunno, things like this I ask myself what would Jesus do?

 

Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 5/14/2021 at 4:00 AM, Damien the Leper said:

I may be absolutely wrong but I don't see this as problematic as dealing with sacramental issues. I am not in any way trying to downplay the issues therein. I'm still newly Catholic. My biggest issues deal with the traditional Mass (and theology) being obscured by Vatican II and Novus Ordo. For example, within the US Episcopal construct they deal with Prayer C of the Book of Common Prayer as well as Enriching Our Worship (EOW) which technically stand as heretical. Not sure if this makes sense but I tried. I still default to Rory and Jesse.

Damien, hey. Calm, hi.

This is my reply to you both. Calm, you asked for the view of the three active Catholics currently on the forum. Isn't it strange that there are no Catholics here at an LDS discussion site, nor ever has been to my knowledge, that staunchly defends the views and policies that are most prevalent among the world's bishops as regards today's liturgy, theology, and evangelistic strategies? In the seventeen years I have been here, we have had a handful of conservative Novus Ordo Catholics who lent their voices to their faith here at the board. While they might not have joined me in blaming the Council or the Mass as a source of Church problems, they distanced themselves, in my opinion, from the most obvious common abuses in the Church. We had much in common, and as a matter of fact, I miss them. I am thinking now of three in particular who I hope are doing well on their journeys. On the other hand, it seems like Catholics who are 100% behind the prevailing policies and agenda of the modernist bishops are not enthused enough about their beliefs to want to represent it to people of other faiths. I cannot remember anyone like that making an appearance here. There is something about abandoning the Faith of the Fathers that is petrifying and sterilizing to the professed Catholic, whether they be popes or bishops, priests or religious, or lay people. Tradition on the hand, animates and makes fruitful. I have seen it in my own life, in my family, in community life, on the internet, through religious polls, and in the entire world, through secular and ecclesial news outlets.     

Damien, I think you're on target with your focus. I cannot be surprised anymore by any loopy developments among Novus Ordo/Vatican II Catholics. But shocking developments can be helpful to remind innocent and searching souls that fidelity to Catholic teaching and authentic liturgy is necessary for a fruitful Catholic faith. Lex Orandi, lex credendi. The law of prayer is the law of belief. The Novus Ordo Mass and certain key areas of Vatican II theology are what has inevitably led to a widespread disregard and even disdain for the Catholic Christianity that existed for almost 2,000 years until the 1960's. You could point out to the great majority of the world's bishops how their actions and beliefs are irreconcilable with the faith of the Church Fathers, saints, ecumenical councils, and popes before 1960. They would admit it if they were honest, but in many cases not even care. These bishops have lost their bearings, and the few conservative bishops lack courage. It isn't like these German bishops would be okay if they merely refrained from blessing homosexual unions. We can not know what they still retain of the Catholic faith, but one can be pretty sure it has little to do with their formation from the teachings of St. Thomas or the canons of the Council of Trent. (Did you know that the philosophy and theology of St. Thomas Aquinas are to be given first place in seminary training according to the Vatican II document relating to the formation of priests? Ironic isn't it, that seminaries which disregard the value of the Old Missal are ordinarily disobedient to this relatively forgotten mandate from Vatican II?)

Defective Masses and corrupt theology has resulted in spiritual blindness among all who have accepted them. The modernist bishops can see that they don't have enough vocations and their churches are emptying. They cannot fail to see that the "critical rad trad" Catholics have seminaries that are teeming with young men discerning a call to the priesthood. There are twenty-two young men from my chapel here in Kansas that will be in the SSPX Seminary this fall. Two deacons from our chapel will be ordained to the priesthood next month. I recently saw a report that all of "Catholic" Ireland had only one Novus Ordo priest ordained for the last year. One! The Novus Ordo/Vatican II Catholic hierarchy cannot recognize that the problem...is them. The bishops can see that young Catholics are turning to Tradition, and away from their church model. The bishops can see that these same faithful young people are drawn to the ancient faith and reject uncritical adherence to the modernist teachings of Vatican II and its infantile vision that everybody will become Catholic if the Church will obscure truths that only Catholics believe. The bishops begin to see that fifty years of adherence to the modernist teachings of Vatican II has not been working out so well for them. But instead of returning to Tradition, in their blind folly, many think that it will do no harm to go beyond Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass! That is what some are trying. In Germany and elsewhere. Its crazy. It is truly madness, or as Sr. Lucia, the seer of Fatima put it, a "diabolical disorientation" has afflicted the Church.

----------

On a further encouraging note...

Our Paschal Candle is snuffed out, our good Lord has left this earth, but we are glad because He goes to the Father...and very truly...we are with Him in heavenly places.  But also...from the Paschal Alleluia before the reading of St. John's Gospel for the Sunday between The Ascension and Pentecost:

"Alleluia. I will not leave you orphans: I go away, and I come unto you, and your heart shall rejoice. Alleluia."

May it be so. God bless.

Rory    

Edited by 3DOP
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
On 5/15/2021 at 9:20 AM, 3DOP said:

Did you know that the philosophy and theology of St. Thomas Aquinas are to be given first place in seminary training according to the Vatican II document relating to the formation of priests? Ironic isn't it, that seminaries which disregard the value of the Old Missal are ordinarily disobedient to this relatively forgotten mandate from Vatican II?

Can you further explain this for me?

Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 5/17/2021 at 7:18 PM, Damien the Leper said:

Can you further explain this for me?

Damien, Hi. I thought I had put up a quick note to say I would get back to you this weekend. Apparently not.

For anyone else reading, here is the quote from my previous post that is being asked to be explained:

"(Did you know that the philosophy and theology of St. Thomas Aquinas are to be given first place in seminary training according to the Vatican II document relating to the formation of priests? Ironic isn't it, that seminaries which disregard the value of the Old Missal are ordinarily disobedient to this relatively forgotten mandate from Vatican II?)"

To begin with, allow me to establish the fact that I claimed regarding the Vatican II document I mentioned, which is entitled Optatum Totius, that it recommends, for the sound formation of priestly candidates, above any other method, philosophy, or theology, that of St. Thomas Aquinas:

"Philosophical subjects should be taught in such a way as to lead the students gradually to a solid and consistent knowledge of man, the world and God. The students should rely on that philosophical patrimony which is forever valid, but should also take account of modern philosophical studies...Thus by correctly understanding the modern mind, students will be prepared to enter into dialogue with their contemporaries."

---Optatum Totius 15 (bold mine)

No one familiar with the jargon would argue that the "forever valid patrimony" on which the seminarian is to rely is none other than the philosophia perennis, perennial philosophy, of the Scholastic era, and is particularly understood of the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas. I am not arguing here that this was a wise or correct estimation of true philosophical inquiry. Indeed, the reasons why popes were making the kinds of speeches they were making, in favor of neo-Thomism, was precisely because of a revival of Thomistic studies in the 20th Century which was not always well-received by academics who were already in high positions in the Catholic Church, her seminaries, and her universities. (More further down about the popes.) Few outside of the Church would see this as a favorable development, and perhaps only a significant minority of churchmen would see neo-Thomism in a truly favorable light. It is small wonder if after the Council, this document should be mostly ignored. 

There is another important reference to the teaching of St. Thomas in Optatum Totius. Besides observing St. Thomas in early philosophical formation, the seminarian must similarly be guided by the Angelic Doctor in the next area of studies. After becoming familiar with the "handmaid" of theology", the philosophia perennis, the seminarian will be guided in dogmatic theology from the same source:    

"...in order that they may illumine the mysteries of salvation as completely as possible, the students should learn to penetrate them more deeply with the help of speculation, under the guidance of St. Thomas, and to perceive their interconnections."

---Optatum Totius 16

The context of this brief reference to the Angelic Doctor is best understood in the context of a movement of neo-Thomism as noted above, and was highly supported by the popes immediately before and during the Council:

Pope Pius XII, who was pope immediately before the Council, made a speech to seminarians on June 24, 1939, which can be found in the Acts of the Apostolic See (AAS 31 (1939), p. 247):

"Emulation in speaking and propagating the truth is not suppressed, but is rather stimulated and given its true direction by commending the teaching of St. Thomas."

Pope Paul VI, was more emphatic in his support of Thomistic thought in a speech delivered to the Gregorian University two years after the beginning of the Council, March 12, 1964, and the year before the document in question was promulgated on October 28, 1965:

"Let (teachers) listen with respect to the Doctors of the Church, among whom St. Thomas Aquinas holds the principle place. For so great is the angelic Doctor's genius, so sincere his love of truth, and so great his wisdom in investigating the deepest truths, in illustrating them, and linking them together with a most fitting bond of unity, that his teaching is a most efficacious instrument not only for safeguarding the foundations of the faith, but also in gaining the fruits of healthy progress with profit and security." 

---AAS 56, (1964), p.365

In my next post I will attempt to explain why I have come to believe that those who are disdainful of the Old Missal, also tend to have disregard for the 20th Century popes, as well as the documents of Vatican II which promote the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas. I do not wish to attribute this to causation necessarily. But I think I could contend that they go hand in hand.

In the meantime Damien, I would welcome any comments or questions from you especially, but also any other interested observers. Perhaps it might stimulate me to use some of my few weekday hours to get up a substantive post. Otherwise, see you next weekend.

Damien, God love, bless, and keep you on your journey. A very blessed and holy Feast of Pentecost to you, the glorious and joyous 50th day since our Lord's Resurrection.

-------------------------------------------------------------

I happened to make it to Mass for the vigil yesterday and was so struck by the Gospel reading here:

"Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more. But you see Me: because I live, and you shall live. In that day you shall know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. He that hath My commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me. And he that loveth Me shall be loved of my Father: and I will love Him, and will manifest Myself to him." 

---from Jn. 14

Only by grace can we love God, but look at the rewards! We cannot do this of ourselves, but whose soul should not stir to "know that I am in my Father, and you in Me, and I in you"? May the virtues of faith, and hope, and charity increase in our souls day by day, and may we rejoice in the Lord always, keeping the good commandments of our Brother and Captain, for we shall be particularly loved by the Father and the Son if we so do. And how will our beneficent and Holy Savior "manifest Myself to him"? By the Paraclete, by the Holy Ghost, Whose reign begins today, Who does not even speak of Himself! But it is He who dwells with us and in us, testifying to us of the love which the Father and the Son have for us. With such a blessed and adorable Trinity, what excuse have we for failing to execute the good will of God, while we love Him who first loved us, miserable us? Miserere Nobis! We are so blessed.

See you soon, God willing.

Rory   

Edited by 3DOP
maid not made
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Posted (edited)

"In my next post I will attempt to explain why I have come to believe that those who are disdainful of the Old Missal, also tend to have disregard for the 20th Century popes, as well as the documents of Vatican II which promote the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas. I do not wish to attribute this to causation necessarily. But I think I could contend that they go hand in hand."

If I recall correctly, the first time I ever considered the idea that the modern Church disregards the Second Vatican Council on its directives for priestly formation came at the suggestion of Bp. Bernard Fellay, FSSPX, at a conference he gave in Kansas City, MO, around 2013. I have done no research into the question. The reasons for my position I admit, are mostly anecdotal. There is a book that I yet to read mentioned below. I have heard a couple of horror stories from tradition loving Novus Ordo priests who simply wanted to retain the Faith of our Fathers. One such priest, told a group of us that he had to keep his beliefs to himself in order to make it through the seminary to ordination. This was many years ago, when I was still in the Novus Ordo, and had hopes that the good fruits of the Council would someday be seen. But I was horrified at the idea that an orthodox Catholic seminarian had to suppress his orthodoxy.

You might be interested in this article from last November. Fr. John Zuhlsdorf is theologically conservative to traditional, and he posts about items relevant to the current state of affairs in the Church. He recently wrote an article which appears to me to be another anecdotal illustration of the ordinary condition of many of our diocesan seminaries. One can view the article at his blog:

https://wdtprs.com/2020/11/wherein-fr-z-reacts-to-a-seminarians-cri-de-coeur/

From the article, you can read the letter of a current deeply discouraged seminarian and Fr. Z's commiseration with the young man, sharing recollections of his time in seminary formation a generation ago. He ends up recommending that the young man stay and fight it out, getting his ordination from these Church hating ideologues. I tend to disagree with Fr. Z. However that may be, I think one can tell from just a couple of comments from the article, that St. Thomas would be far above the kinds of lessons they were trying to give at Fr. Z.'s seminary:

"On my first day of seminary in these USA (sic), they made us name tulip bulbs and then plant them while the worship team chanted a mantra including “the bringer of light”."  

A good priest doesn't have time for puerile nonsense, and neither should the seminarian. It reminds me of my last RCIA session in the Novus Ordo, the weekend after the Easter Vigil when we had our First Holy Communions, and our Confirmations. There were a lot of adult conversions, a couple dozen at least. I was thankful. I was happy. I was as I thought, a soldier of Christ, and ready to be at post, doing my duty. That day, they wanted all of us to do some kind of project using some kind of materials that reminded me of arts and crafts thirty years before in the public school. I say this laughing now, but I hated that ______ then, but at least I was a child! Naming tulips? What kind of preparation is that for a lifetime of priestly sacrifice? Another part of the story will give an idea of what kind of seminary formation the future priest would receive:

"We were forbidden to use the word “priest”. 

The modern church is so democratized that they are embarrassed at the priestly hierarchy established by Christ in the Church. Apparently, Satan isn't the only person who hates the priesthood. We need holy priests, steeped in 2,000 years of Catholic Tradition, unashamed of the minor orders, as well as the major: the sub-diaconate, diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate, and who understand their ancient institution and their duties and relationships within the hierarchy. Holy Orders are one of the glories of the Church. Priests also need familiarity with the holy, miraculous lives of the saints, the writings of the Church Fathers, and the Holy Scriptures. Finally. as per Vatican II, seminarians also need the aid of the philosophia perennis, and the systematic theology of St. Thomas Aquinas whose method supplies the counter arguments to his propositions to allow familiarity with opposing points of view. Typical seminary formation must be completed in only seven years. Good seminaries prepare priests with a minimal foundation that may stimulate the mind and inflame the will in its love for God. Depending on circumstances of Providence, the future priest may have not have much time to develop his mind as he might like. But the hunger will always be there if the priest has learned that his "meat is to do the will of Him who sent them." There will be praise for every opportunity to enlarge their intellects, but their very sustenance, will be to obey from the heart the will of God always.

A Catholic seminary needs to have a tightly compact regimen that would certainly allow leisure to those who have healthy horticultural interests. But I am fairly certain that we do not have any need for weird priests who give names to their plants. I have to doubt that an institution that would initiate young men to the seminary through a ceremony as described above, is going to encourage them to a study of St. Thomas Aquinas or anything else important.  Ultimately, the sheep recognize the voice of the Good Shepherd. The sheep remember that Jesus warned of false prophets, of wolves in sheep's clothing, and that by their fruits we would be able to distinguish the wolves from the good shepherds. The modern church is falling apart. The Church has always seen herself as elevating the flock to its fullest potential. But a religion that becomes accessible without effort, does not rouse spirits. The fully modern Catholic parish with its everyday humdrum vernacular, is dull, lifeless, and sterile. They lack vocations to a decreasing flock. Young men don't want to be priests so they can serve baby food to grownups who apparently can't be expected to cooperate with the Church in the elevation of their own minds and spirits. This is how I know the wolves from the true shepherds. Our Lord didn't want to make it hard to figure out. It is okay for the sheep to flee to good shepherds who have good fruit and who expect the sheep to joyfully participate in their own sanctification.  

Traditional Catholicism has the potential to enlighten the mind and fill the heart with joy and love for a good God who gives us His very nature. We can aspire in this life to increase our understanding as well as our charity. Progress or regress is the rule this side of the grave, and so we are taught. The Traditional Liturgy is something to love, that makes one overcome momentary laziness, for weekday Mass, Sunday Vespers, Processions, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament and other grace-giving opportunities to joyfully participate in the non-obligatory public worship of the Church. It makes one happy to observe traditional days of fasting such as our Ember Day of Pentecost today. Even when the official discipline of the Church is relaxed, the Traditional liturgy makes one hungry to fast! Heh. (I didn't used to do it because it wasn't required, but it was the prayers of the Mass during Lent, vigils and other days of penance that made me consciously desire to unite myself with Holy Church in this matter of fasting. You just don't want to miss out on the good that is promised for such a small price.)     

There is a book that catalogues the travesties which have been taking place in the typical Catholic seminary for the last fifty years now. (It was written in 2002). The title of this book is Goodbye, Good Men by Michael Rose. Here is where you can see about the former book, which I should read so as to be better prepared to answer why I tend to think that seminaries that are supposedly supportive of Vatican II, are disobedient to the teachings of Vatican II as regards priestly formation: https://archive.org/details/GoodbyeGoodMenByMichaelS.Rose

Happy Feast of the Blessed Trinity tomorrow! What a rich time in our Church's calendar...okay...I won't give a sermonette this time. I have been too wordy too often. God bless you Damien, and any interested parties.

Rory         

 

Edited by 3DOP
  • Upvote 2
Link to post

Calm...You are quick. Read it again...the edited version...You might want to reconsider! Heh.

The edits are mostly trying to trim away the superfluous. My problem is being too verbose and following my "stream of consciousness" which does not always remember, because of a new idea, what I have been writing a few lines before. I know this is true, and a flaw that I would like to correct.

Anyway, the lawn is waiting and so are other little chores for this Saturday of no work. How about Monday and no work? I don't know if you and your husband are retired so as to need a holiday to be able to have a little weekday leisure? I hope so for your sakes. I'm a gettin' there! 

God bless you for your support, not always deserved I fear.

Rory

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

? I don't know if you and your husband are retired so as to need a holiday to be able to have a little weekday leisure?

I don’t work outside the home...or much in it most days.  I prefer weekends I feel like working. Remarkable how much work feels like a blessing when you can’t do it. My husband is a professor, has a lot of night classes and thus Fridays are usually freeish for him.  So weekend leisure isn’t really a thing for us. 
 

And I will be reading the edited version as I only skimmed it the first time through. I preemptively gave you a rep point to be sure I had one for taking the time to explain your ideas, etc...while anticipating reading it later when the brain fog clears. :)  

Edited by Calm
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 minute ago, Calm said:

I don’t work outside the home...or much in it most days.  I prefer weekends I feel like working. Remarkable how much work feels like a blessing when you can’t do it. My husband is a professor, has a lot of night classes and thus Fridays are usually freeish for him.  So weekend leisure isn’t really a thing for us. 

Calm...I have thought that it is possible that the day will come when I miss going to work. But I don't think so. Now I am in dust and very loud noise. Before that it was specialty garbage. I have always come home filthy. Maybe...maybe...I will be able to not miss this! Maybe God gave me such undesirable jobs so I could enjoy my retirement better?

Anyway, not to be all religious and serious about it, but I am intending to get some good advice on how to arrange my days when this happens. I think work of any kind is a blessing at least to a man (you know I am a hopeless patriarchal guy), because it shapes the day. You know that the activity in which you are engaged is the will of God for those hours, and they are many. I get in to more confusion and trouble on weekends than weekdays. It is sadly true.

But hey...I need to get going like I said...We just did some landscaping and we haven't even taken time for a ceremonial naming of the new shrubs and plants...Later.       

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

We just did some landscaping and we haven't even taken time for a ceremonial naming of the new shrubs and plants

😂

I have a plant in my classroom that’s been with me since my first day of teaching 15 years ago. I call him Hampton 😁

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
6 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

😂

I have a plant in my classroom that’s been with me since my first day of teaching 15 years ago. I call him Hampton 😁

Do the owners of plants decide the gender of a plant, or is there some way to determine that plants are ontologically boys or girls or...? It kind of doesn't seem right for a plant to have gender imposed without permission. I am not suggesting this is the case for Hampton, but I am concerned for him/her/???. Anyway...streams of consciousness flying every which way Jesse...God love and bless you on our Happy Feast Day tomorrow.

Link to post
On 5/29/2021 at 12:50 PM, 3DOP said:

"In my next post I will attempt to explain why I have come to believe that those who are disdainful of the Old Missal, also tend to have disregard for the 20th Century popes, as well as the documents of Vatican II which promote the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas. I do not wish to attribute this to causation necessarily. But I think I could contend that they go hand in hand."

If I recall correctly, the first time I ever considered the idea that the modern Church disregards the Second Vatican Council on its directives for priestly formation came at the suggestion of Bp. Bernard Fellay, FSSPX, at a conference he gave in Kansas City, MO, around 2013. I have done no research into the question. The reasons for my position I admit, are mostly anecdotal. There is a book that I yet to read mentioned below. I have heard a couple of horror stories from tradition loving Novus Ordo priests who simply wanted to retain the Faith of our Fathers. One such priest, told a group of us that he had to keep his beliefs to himself in order to make it through the seminary to ordination. This was many years ago, when I was still in the Novus Ordo, and had hopes that the good fruits of the Council would someday be seen. But I was horrified at the idea that an orthodox Catholic seminarian had to suppress his orthodoxy.

You might be interested in this article from last November. Fr. John Zuhlsdorf is theologically conservative to traditional, and he posts about items relevant to the current state of affairs in the Church. He recently wrote an article which appears to me to be another anecdotal illustration of the ordinary condition of many of our diocesan seminaries. One can view the article at his blog:

https://wdtprs.com/2020/11/wherein-fr-z-reacts-to-a-seminarians-cri-de-coeur/

From the article, you can read the letter of a current deeply discouraged seminarian and Fr. Z's commiseration with the young man, sharing recollections of his time in seminary formation a generation ago. He ends up recommending that the young man stay and fight it out, getting his ordination from these Church hating ideologues. I tend to disagree with Fr. Z. However that may be, I think one can tell from just a couple of comments from the article, that St. Thomas would be far above the kinds of lessons they were trying to give at Fr. Z.'s seminary:

"On my first day of seminary in these USA (sic), they made us name tulip bulbs and then plant them while the worship team chanted a mantra including “the bringer of light”."  

A good priest doesn't have time for puerile nonsense, and neither should the seminarian. It reminds me of my last RCIA session in the Novus Ordo, the weekend after the Easter Vigil when we had our First Holy Communions, and our Confirmations. There were a lot of adult conversions, a couple dozen at least. I was thankful. I was happy. I was as I thought, a soldier of Christ, and ready to be at post, doing my duty. That day, they wanted all of us to do some kind of project using some kind of materials that reminded me of arts and crafts thirty years before in the public school. I say this laughing now, but I hated that ______ then, but at least I was a child! Naming tulips? What kind of preparation is that for a lifetime of priestly sacrifice? Another part of the story will give an idea of what kind of seminary formation the future priest would receive:

"We were forbidden to use the word “priest”. 

The modern church is so democratized that they are embarrassed at the priestly hierarchy established by Christ in the Church. Apparently, Satan isn't the only person who hates the priesthood. We need holy priests, steeped in 2,000 years of Catholic Tradition, unashamed of the minor orders, as well as the major: the sub-diaconate, diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate, and who understand their ancient institution and their duties and relationships within the hierarchy. Holy Orders are one of the glories of the Church. Priests also need familiarity with the holy, miraculous lives of the saints, the writings of the Church Fathers, and the Holy Scriptures. Finally. as per Vatican II, seminarians also need the aid of the philosophia perennis, and the systematic theology of St. Thomas Aquinas whose method supplies the counter arguments to his propositions to allow familiarity with opposing points of view. Typical seminary formation must be completed in only seven years. Good seminaries prepare priests with a minimal foundation that may stimulate the mind and inflame the will in its love for God. Depending on circumstances of Providence, the future priest may have not have much time to develop his mind as he might like. But the hunger will always be there if the priest has learned that his "meat is to do the will of Him who sent them." There will be praise for every opportunity to enlarge their intellects, but their very sustenance, will be to obey from the heart the will of God always.

A Catholic seminary needs to have a tightly compact regimen that would certainly allow leisure to those who have healthy horticultural interests. But I am fairly certain that we do not have any need for weird priests who give names to their plants. I have to doubt that an institution that would initiate young men to the seminary through a ceremony as described above, is going to encourage them to a study of St. Thomas Aquinas or anything else important.  Ultimately, the sheep recognize the voice of the Good Shepherd. The sheep remember that Jesus warned of false prophets, of wolves in sheep's clothing, and that by their fruits we would be able to distinguish the wolves from the good shepherds. The modern church is falling apart. The Church has always seen herself as elevating the flock to its fullest potential. But a religion that becomes accessible without effort, does not rouse spirits. The fully modern Catholic parish with its everyday humdrum vernacular, is dull, lifeless, and sterile. They lack vocations to a decreasing flock. Young men don't want to be priests so they can serve baby food to grownups who apparently can't be expected to cooperate with the Church in the elevation of their own minds and spirits. This is how I know the wolves from the true shepherds. Our Lord didn't want to make it hard to figure out. It is okay for the sheep to flee to good shepherds who have good fruit and who expect the sheep to joyfully participate in their own sanctification.  

Traditional Catholicism has the potential to enlighten the mind and fill the heart with joy and love for a good God who gives us His very nature. We can aspire in this life to increase our understanding as well as our charity. Progress or regress is the rule this side of the grave, and so we are taught. The Traditional Liturgy is something to love, that makes one overcome momentary laziness, for weekday Mass, Sunday Vespers, Processions, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament and other grace-giving opportunities to joyfully participate in the non-obligatory public worship of the Church. It makes one happy to observe traditional days of fasting such as our Ember Day of Pentecost today. Even when the official discipline of the Church is relaxed, the Traditional liturgy makes one hungry to fast! Heh. (I didn't used to do it because it wasn't required, but it was the prayers of the Mass during Lent, vigils and other days of penance that made me consciously desire to unite myself with Holy Church in this matter of fasting. You just don't want to miss out on the good that is promised for such a small price.)     

There is a book that catalogues the travesties which have been taking place in the typical Catholic seminary for the last fifty years now. (It was written in 2002). The title of this book is Goodbye, Good Men by Michael Rose. Here is where you can see about the former book, which I should read so as to be better prepared to answer why I tend to think that seminaries that are supposedly supportive of Vatican II, are disobedient to the teachings of Vatican II as regards priestly formation: https://archive.org/details/GoodbyeGoodMenByMichaelS.Rose

Happy Feast of the Blessed Trinity tomorrow! What a rich time in our Church's calendar...okay...I won't give a sermonette this time. I have been too wordy too often. God bless you Damien, and any interested parties.

Rory         

 

This is not at all intended to be critical in any way to Aquinas, transubstantiation, or the Church, in fact I find it quite a fascinating new way to see Catholic doctrine that I thnk would be useful for folks looking to understand Catholicism in a  new way.

Maybe you would find that heretical though or not- I am not sure.   I just want you to know that I mean this to be positive and not find it critical in anyway.

What I have found is that in reading Bishop Barron, he has interpreted Aquinas in a post-modern way, in that the words he uses seem to express what Aquinas said, yet the meaning of the words have changed.

For example- "substance" has in effect become "significance" or "meaning", as in "The substance of the letter is positive and highly consistent"  or "This changes the significance and substance of the idea drastically"

One sense is talking about "the world" and the other is speaking of our ATTITUDE toward the world.

I think for Aquinas "substance" referred to a metaphysical "substance", using the word as we would use it today to mean something like "an oily substance" or a "metallic substance", or a "rock-like substance"-- something real and tangible out there in the world- yet of course it is spiritual and so, invisible, but definitely something that "stands beneath" the physical world, yet because it is invisible, by definition the substance is NOT what we see- what we see is the APPEARANCE of the substance.

And so there is a dichotomy between appearance and substance.

And so in the Eucharist, in the traditional way, the words of consecration actually causes an invisible but in principle, physical, change in "what underlies" the substance of bread, to that which underlies the substance of flesh and blood, yet without changing the appearances.  So what still appears to be bread is now ACTUALLY the Body of Christ.

Barron's interpretation, if I have understood it correctly, is that with those words of consecration, the SIGNIFICANCE of the bread has changed, for the believer, in meaning from being ordinary bread to actually being as significant as the actual Flesh of Our Lord.

He gives an analogy of how the words "you are under arrest"- spoken perhaps by children playing cops and robbers change in SUBSTANCE and SIGNIFICANCE when a real police officer, under the right circumstances, says those same words.  Off you go to jail.

That shift of meaning is caused by the context in which the words are spoken.   This is very much a Wittgensteinian idea in which the meaning of words and their significance change according to context.  One example he uses is the meaning of the word "brick".   Ordinarily that word means a rectangular object used in building houses.   But in the context of a bricklayer saying it to his assistant, as they are building a wall,  it can mean "Please hand me a brick" - changing the meaning of the utterance completely.

To me it parallels the LDS Sacrament because the words of our sacrament- under the authority of the speaker- limit its blessings to those who "partake" of it- in other words, to people who are members.  In both cases, the community of believers led by their leader with authority, change the significance/substance of the bread

Quote

O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them ...

 
 
So in my opinion, in Robert Barron's approach and the the LDS approach, the change in "Substance/Significance" of the Eucharist/Sacrament is phenomenological- that is- it is for believers who already believe it is happening. 
The BELIEF makes the change in significance real
 
We EXPERIENCE the bread in a different way than we did a few minutes ago- its significance/substance has completely changed
 
 
 
  • Like 1
Link to post
On 5/29/2021 at 12:50 PM, 3DOP said:

"In my next post I will attempt to explain why I have come to believe that those who are disdainful of the Old Missal, also tend to have disregard for the 20th Century popes, as well as the documents of Vatican II which promote the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas. I do not wish to attribute this to causation necessarily. But I think I could contend that they go hand in hand."

If I recall correctly, the first time I ever considered the idea that the modern Church disregards the Second Vatican Council on its directives for priestly formation came at the suggestion of Bp. Bernard Fellay, FSSPX, at a conference he gave in Kansas City, MO, around 2013. I have done no research into the question. The reasons for my position I admit, are mostly anecdotal. There is a book that I yet to read mentioned below. I have heard a couple of horror stories from tradition loving Novus Ordo priests who simply wanted to retain the Faith of our Fathers. One such priest, told a group of us that he had to keep his beliefs to himself in order to make it through the seminary to ordination. This was many years ago, when I was still in the Novus Ordo, and had hopes that the good fruits of the Council would someday be seen. But I was horrified at the idea that an orthodox Catholic seminarian had to suppress his orthodoxy.

You might be interested in this article from last November. Fr. John Zuhlsdorf is theologically conservative to traditional, and he posts about items relevant to the current state of affairs in the Church. He recently wrote an article which appears to me to be another anecdotal illustration of the ordinary condition of many of our diocesan seminaries. One can view the article at his blog:

https://wdtprs.com/2020/11/wherein-fr-z-reacts-to-a-seminarians-cri-de-coeur/

 

 

Just to make it clear, in case it was not, this horrifying yet fascinating article points directly to what I brought up in my last post.

The philosophy distained in the article is precisely my point of view, philosophically.

I wanted to say that so that others know that my views toward the CoJCLDS are precisely the same as those presented as "liberal" Catholic views and which are justifiably criticized in the article- justifyably, that is, from the author's point of view.

Many here see me as a loner crackpot, but I just wanted to point out that this is a huge trend in the understanding of religion today.  

So if I am a loner crackpot to someone,  know that at least I have company.

The trend toward immanentism, and seeing God through the lens of psychology rather than metaphysics is not going away soon.  That is inescapable- what we know is what we know!  It's "all in our heads" in that simple tautology- and there is no way out of it

Do we love our spouses?  That's "in our heads"

Do we have purpose in life?  That's "in our heads"

Are we happy?  That's "in our heads"

Do we know our "Chruch is true?"  - pick your church - That's "in our heads"

Are we confident or fearful, bold or shy?  That's "in our heads"

Atheist or theist?  That's "in our heads"

The psychologial approach to what we know, think, and see is not going away soon.  The genie is out of the lamp.

Link to post
On 5/29/2021 at 12:50 PM, 3DOP said:

 

You might be interested in this article from last November. Fr. John Zuhlsdorf is theologically conservative to traditional, and he posts about items relevant to the current state of affairs in the Church. He recently wrote an article which appears to me to be another anecdotal illustration of the ordinary condition of many of our diocesan seminaries. One can view the article at his blog:

https://wdtprs.com/2020/11/wherein-fr-z-reacts-to-a-seminarians-cri-de-coeur/

From the article, you can read the letter of a current deeply discouraged seminarian and Fr. Z's commiseration with the young man, sharing recollections of his time in seminary formation a generation ago. He ends up recommending that the young man stay and fight it out, getting his ordination from these Church hating ideologues. I tend to disagree with Fr. Z. However that may be, I think one can tell from just a couple of comments from the article, that St. Thomas would be far above the kinds of lessons they were trying to give at Fr. Z.'s seminary:

"On my first day of seminary in these USA (sic), they made us name tulip bulbs and then plant them while the worship team chanted a mantra including “the bringer of light”."  

A good priest doesn't have time for puerile nonsense, and neither should the seminarian. It reminds me of my last RCIA session in the Novus Ordo, the weekend after the Easter Vigil when we had our First Holy Communions, and our Confirmations. There were a lot of adult conversions, a couple dozen at least. I was thankful. I was happy. I was as I thought, a soldier of Christ, and ready to be at post, doing my duty. That day, they wanted all of us to do some kind of project using some kind of materials that reminded me of arts and crafts thirty years before in the public school. I say this laughing now, but I hated that ______ then, but at least I was a child! Naming tulips? What kind of preparation is that for a lifetime of priestly sacrifice? Another part of the story will give an idea of what kind of seminary formation the future priest would receive:

"We were forbidden to use the word “priest”. 

The modern church is so democratized that they are embarrassed at the priestly hierarchy established by Christ in the Church. Apparently, Satan isn't the only person who hates the priesthood. We need holy priests, steeped in 2,000 years of Catholic Tradition, unashamed of the minor orders, as well as the major: the sub-diaconate, diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate, and who understand their ancient institution and their duties and relationships within the hierarchy. Holy Orders are one of the glories of the Church. Priests also need familiarity with the holy, miraculous lives of the saints, the writings of the Church Fathers, and the Holy Scriptures. Finally. as per Vatican II, seminarians also need the aid of the philosophia perennis, and the systematic theology of St. Thomas Aquinas whose method supplies the counter arguments to his propositions to allow familiarity with opposing points of view. Typical seminary formation must be completed in only seven years. Good seminaries prepare priests with a minimal foundation that may stimulate the mind and inflame the will in its love for God. Depending on circumstances of Providence, the future priest may have not have much time to develop his mind as he might like. But the hunger will always be there if the priest has learned that his "meat is to do the will of Him who sent them." There will be praise for every opportunity to enlarge their intellects, but their very sustenance, will be to obey from the heart the will of God always.

A Catholic seminary needs to have a tightly compact regimen that would certainly allow leisure to those who have healthy horticultural interests. But I am fairly certain that we do not have any need for weird priests who give names to their plants. I have to doubt that an institution that would initiate young men to the seminary through a ceremony as described above, is going to encourage them to a study of St. Thomas Aquinas or anything else important.  Ultimately, the sheep recognize the voice of the Good Shepherd. The sheep remember that Jesus warned of false prophets, of wolves in sheep's clothing, and that by their fruits we would be able to distinguish the wolves from the good shepherds. The modern church is falling apart. The Church has always seen herself as elevating the flock to its fullest potential. But a religion that becomes accessible without effort, does not rouse spirits. The fully modern Catholic parish with its everyday humdrum vernacular, is dull, lifeless, and sterile. They lack vocations to a decreasing flock. Young men don't want to be priests so they can serve baby food to grownups who apparently can't be expected to cooperate with the Church in the elevation of their own minds and spirits. This is how I know the wolves from the true shepherds. Our Lord didn't want to make it hard to figure out. It is okay for the sheep to flee to good shepherds who have good fruit and who expect the sheep to joyfully participate in their own sanctification.  

Traditional Catholicism has the potential to enlighten the mind and fill the heart with joy and love for a good God who gives us His very nature. We can aspire in this life to increase our understanding as well as our charity. Progress or regress is the rule this side of the grave, and so we are taught. The Traditional Liturgy is something to love, that makes one overcome momentary laziness, for weekday Mass, Sunday Vespers, Processions, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament and other grace-giving opportunities to joyfully participate in the non-obligatory public worship of the Church. It makes one happy to observe traditional days of fasting such as our Ember Day of Pentecost today. Even when the official discipline of the Church is relaxed, the Traditional liturgy makes one hungry to fast! Heh. (I didn't used to do it because it wasn't required, but it was the prayers of the Mass during Lent, vigils and other days of penance that made me consciously desire to unite myself with Holy Church in this matter of fasting. You just don't want to miss out on the good that is promised for such a small price.)     

There is a book that catalogues the travesties which have been taking place in the typical Catholic seminary for the last fifty years now. (It was written in 2002). The title of this book is Goodbye, Good Men by Michael Rose. Here is where you can see about the former book, which I should read so as to be better prepared to answer why I tend to think that seminaries that are supposedly supportive of Vatican II, are disobedient to the teachings of Vatican II as regards priestly formation: https://archive.org/details/GoodbyeGoodMenByMichaelS.Rose

Happy Feast of the Blessed Trinity tomorrow! What a rich time in our Church's calendar...okay...I won't give a sermonette this time. I have been too wordy too often. God bless you Damien, and any interested parties.

Rory         

 

I have been meaning to reply to this, simply to perhaps make my assertions that what is being taught here can be termed "postmodernism".  I was further prompted by some other messages I received as private messages.

I consider myself to be a postmodernist and actually find it the ONLY way to fully justify belief in an invisible spirit person who created the earth and in fact is accessible through prayer.

I see this turn toward postmodernism as entirely a positive thing that might actually revive religion if we could only get people to understand the philosophy behind it.

In an age of scientism, postmodernism looks inward in an epistemology based not on a world "out there" which in principle is impossible for the human mind to access

Simply put, we perceive ONLY what we personally perceive, period.

Yes there are causes of what we perceive- you would have to be in the looney bin if you thought nothing out there is "real".   BUT simple logic tells us that WHAT we perceive even on a simple level must flow though our senses into our brains where it is processed into what that brain interprets as 'reality"-- and the intepretations include our entire psychological mechanisms in deciding what is true or false.   In the sciences, those senses are"policed" by scientific training and published to a community of similarly trained humans who pronounce the observations as "objective" because their training demands such pooled evidence and agreement as the very definition of what "objectivity" is

God cannot be observed by these means.  God is observed subjectively by feelings in the heart.   There is a lot more that goes into this of course than a simple post on a message board.

But the bottom line is that Postmodernism is about interpreting and describing not what is objective but what is subjective.   And if God can only be expressed subjectively then it is perfectly logical to use a language form which is subjective in its very nature.  We have been barking up the wrong tree for 2000 years at least looking for "unchangeable truth" in  "objectivity" and science- and NOT in our psychological perceptions - where God CAN be found.!!   

We have been looking in the wrong trunk in the attic!

Anyway I wanted to go through this article and show a few of the trends toward postmodernism found in religion today.   Of course its author is NOT postmodernist, and he helps us find rather quickly the items which ARE postmodern simply by showing us what he despises about seminary training.

A link to the full article is posted in the above quote from @3DOP- it is the first link he provides us.

Quote


I have written quite a few times here that – in this time of erosion and reversal in the Church – young priests and seminarians will increasingly be exposed to the sort of thing we older guys had to endure in the bad old days of the 80’s and 90’s.  Having grown up in relative sanity will they have the wherewithal to deal with the ascendency of the New catholic Red Guards in those places where lib bishops control the seminaries?  It’s a concern.

Today, however, we have the greater threat of the rapidly expanding demographic sinkhole opening up under the Church into which the generation of seasoned-senior Catholics will disappear due to age and the subsequent generations of the un-contracepted and un-aborted indifferent immanentists will follow, no longer interested in keeping up the illusion of even cultural, familial Catholicism.   The demographic sinkhole is gaping in an accelerated rate under the influence of the demonically-accursed Chinese virus, the Wuhan Devil.

I firmly believe that, in time, the groups that remain, because of their strong, hard-identity Catholicism, will find each other and form something dynamic.  Traditionalists and charismatics and converts.  There will be frictions.  That’s okay.

Meanwhile, young men who are in seminaries are starting – in some places, at least, to experience the grinder of the a-spiritual, virtue-signal laden, ideology-driven humanistic rubbish that is in ascendance in this time of Francis, his papalotrous New catholic Red Guards, COVID, and globalism.

 

And here is the first clue- the term "humanistic rubbish".  Humanism is based on the importance of the human being in the world- and is primarily based on how humans "ought to be" and react- clearly not a scientific question but one about our subjective values and what is IMPORTANT to us instead of how the world works mechanically.  Those are preisely the areas in which postmodernism finds strength and truth.

Quote

 

I read a piece at The American Conservative by Rod Dreher. He relates an anonymized letter from a seminarian who is being crushed in a seminary which is going full out crazy.  It is a real cri de coeur.  It echoes many of my worries which I expressed at the top, about the return of the bad old days.

A few quotes:

In the Church, truth and falsehood, good and evil have been replaced by liberal and conservative. I live in fear of being branded with the scarlet letter “C”. I have to weigh every word and action, and measure out the amount of hostility I attract to myself. All the while we hear constant rhetoric about diversity, inclusivity, and dialogue. They are the intolerant tolerant ones. All are welcome, but some are more welcome than others.

I feel like I am being gaslit by the psychologizing of religion. The implication is that sexual deviancy is caused by sexual repression. Those who advocate for obeying the commandments are blamed for people disobeying the commandments.

 

The first clue is the usage of "truth and falsehood"which  implies of course that there IS "truth and falsehood" in religion- that implies the question of how one "proves" religious truth and falsehood in a world of scientism. Where is the scientific evidence for God's existence?  It does not exist.  We must rely on feelings of the heart for finding our personal truth about God- HENCE we are speaking as postmodernists when we think that way about God.  Mysticism only makes sense in a world where visions can be "real". Questions about of how God performs the mechanics of omniscience, for example, or what omnipotence even means and includes in a universe seen only through scientific eyes are not exactly provable by scientific experimentation.   Of course the subjective approach of post modernism is the only place in which rational argumentation about God is possible.   He is real because we can experience him, not as an object outside of us but as a part of ourselves- a connection heart to heart.

Notice "the psychologogizing of religion".   There you have it conclusively.  He says religion cannot be based on psychology while that is the ONLY place even makes sense anymore.  Stories of invisible Gods and people coming back from the dead?  With no scientific evidence?   Miracles of healing and a "Person" speaking to one's heart to decide ones vocation in life?  "Nonsense!" says the contemporary logic of science - the modern arbiter of scientific truth.  When science is the only TRUTH, by definition God's existence cannot be TRUE.

I will not comment on sexual morality other than to say that for better or worse, the trend is toward finding virtual any consensual practice as permissible, based on a kind of subjective morality.   It is not surprising that that subjective trend has found its way into religion.

Quote

 

We have been so abused by the Church, sexually of course, but also spiritually, morally, liturgically, psychologically, etc. I’ve learned to survive by keeping my head down and my mouth shut. My heart is filled with resentment. I just wanted to be Catholic, but I am not welcome in the Church. The Church is not what she should be, and I hate what she is. My heart is filled with bitterness, and I don’t want to live like this anymore.

 

 

This I think  captures the ambivalence in trying to square Eternal Truth in a world where truth is psychological and the "real" is subjective and what we think it is.  Obviously this portrays horribly severe psychological conflict.  He wanted Absolute Truth conveyed in terms of constantly changing science and - mysticism combined with logic- a combination of diametrically opposed ways of seeing the world, and when he could not reconcile the two, it nearly broke him.

Quote

On my first day of seminary in these USA, they made us name tulip bulbs and then plant them while the worship team chanted a mantra including “the bringer of light”.    Most of the priest members of the “Growth in Life and Ministry” team, quit the priesthood.  Members of the faculty died of AIDs. The vice-rector priest (who threw me out) shacked up with a female member of the faculty after “presiding” at the invalid “wedding” of David Haas and female faculty member.   We were forbidden to use the word “priest”.  A statue of Our Lady of Fatima got one of my classmates dismissed for an “excessive Marian devotion”.  The history teacher was one of most incompetent people I’ve ever met.  Homosexuality was rife in the rooms.  They literally destroyed the spectacular chapel before our eyes, with jackhammers, reversed it’s entire orientation, and painted in colors more suitable to a bordello.   In homiletics, the idiot teacher (who shacked up with the vice rector)  wanted the men the crawl around on the floor and meow.  When we objected to the absolutely unchewable, unswallowable “bread” they made for Eucharist, we were told but one of the theological brain-trusts that “the longer you chew, the more of a sacrament it is”.  That was confusing because we were also told that “the sacrament takes place when you look into the eyes of the one who gifts it”.   And, “when the ordained minister says the words of institution over bread and wine, no real change takes place: it becomes a symbol of the unity of the community gathered there in that moment.”

And here we get a picture of the totality of the conflict between the scientific view of religion and the psychologial.   I am not sure when this was written but it reminds me of the "sensitivity training" exercises of the '70's in which people were encouraged to stop and "count the roses" - part of the alleged practice of turning toward feelings and eschewing the usual scientism of the day.   Of course it is ridiculous when seen here as he expresses it, but notice that the purpose of such an alleged exercise is to cultivate psychological sensitivity to the feelings, ideally bringing one more "in tune" with the Cosmos and yes, even God.  I believe that the "sexual freedom" movement grew again out of a trend to do "what feels good" as long as no one is harmed.   

That is a corruption of Utilitarianism which was considered as part of the pragmatism of the times, where if something "worked' and hurt no one, it was permitted.  I am opposed to that simplification and would include the spiritual good or damage a given practice implants, but this is not the place to go into that.

Obviously the conflict it produces can be highly damaging when it is misunderstood without including the higher potential of humans to overcome base desires in the pursit of God, the highest pleasure of all.   But that is for another day- for here and now it is clear that the seminarian was in great conflict trying to reconcile these two ways of seeing the world.  And it appears that Catholicism itself was in the turmoil, but again, ours is not to condemn- we all have our own problems!  ;)

Quote

I could go on.  And on.

And so could I, and will if anyone requests it

The next section in the article is about the Priesthood- your homework is to read that portion and identify the conflicts caused by the modern world with a 1200 year old philosophy ;)

This is not judgemental- that 800 year old philosophy might be exactly what God wants of us

Or then we could follow our hearts.   We each get to decide.

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On 6/7/2021 at 2:16 AM, mfbukowski said:

I have been meaning to reply to this, simply to perhaps make my assertions that what is being taught here can be termed "postmodernism".  I was further prompted by some other messages I received as private messages.

I consider myself to be a postmodernist and actually find it the ONLY way to fully justify belief in an invisible spirit person who created the earth and in fact is accessible through prayer.

I see this turn toward postmodernism as entirely a positive thing that might actually revive religion if we could only get people to understand the philosophy behind it.

In an age of scientism, postmodernism looks inward in an epistemology based not on a world "out there" which in principle is impossible for the human mind to access

Simply put, we perceive ONLY what we personally perceive, period.

Yes there are causes of what we perceive- you would have to be in the looney bin if you thought nothing out there is "real".   BUT simple logic tells us that WHAT we perceive even on a simple level must flow though our senses into our brains where it is processed into what that brain interprets as 'reality"-- and the intepretations include our entire psychological mechanisms in deciding what is true or false.   In the sciences, those senses are"policed" by scientific training and published to a community of similarly trained humans who pronounce the observations as "objective" because their training demands such pooled evidence and agreement as the very definition of what "objectivity" is

God cannot be observed by these means.  God is observed subjectively by feelings in the heart.   There is a lot more that goes into this of course than a simple post on a message board.

But the bottom line is that Postmodernism is about interpreting and describing not what is objective but what is subjective.   And if God can only be expressed subjectively then it is perfectly logical to use a language form which is subjective in its very nature.  We have been barking up the wrong tree for 2000 years at least looking for "unchangeable truth" in  "objectivity" and science- and NOT in our psychological perceptions - where God CAN be found.!!   

We have been looking in the wrong trunk in the attic!

Anyway I wanted to go through this article and show a few of the trends toward postmodernism found in religion today.   Of course its author is NOT postmodernist, and he helps us find rather quickly the items which ARE postmodern simply by showing us what he despises about seminary training.

A link to the full article is posted in the above quote from @3DOP- it is the first link he provides us.

And here is the first clue- the term "humanistic rubbish".  Humanism is based on the importance of the human being in the world- and is primarily based on how humans "ought to be" and react- clearly not a scientific question but one about our subjective values and what is IMPORTANT to us instead of how the world works mechanically.  Those are preisely the areas in which postmodernism finds strength and truth.

The first clue is the usage of "truth and falsehood"which  implies of course that there IS "truth and falsehood" in religion- that implies the question of how one "proves" religious truth and falsehood in a world of scientism. Where is the scientific evidence for God's existence?  It does not exist.  We must rely on feelings of the heart for finding our personal truth about God- HENCE we are speaking as postmodernists when we think that way about God.  Mysticism only makes sense in a world where visions can be "real". Questions about of how God performs the mechanics of omniscience, for example, or what omnipotence even means and includes in a universe seen only through scientific eyes are not exactly provable by scientific experimentation.   Of course the subjective approach of post modernism is the only place in which rational argumentation about God is possible.   He is real because we can experience him, not as an object outside of us but as a part of ourselves- a connection heart to heart.

Notice "the psychologogizing of religion".   There you have it conclusively.  He says religion cannot be based on psychology while that is the ONLY place even makes sense anymore.  Stories of invisible Gods and people coming back from the dead?  With no scientific evidence?   Miracles of healing and a "Person" speaking to one's heart to decide ones vocation in life?  "Nonsense!" says the contemporary logic of science - the modern arbiter of scientific truth.  When science is the only TRUTH, by definition God's existence cannot be TRUE.

I will not comment on sexual morality other than to say that for better or worse, the trend is toward finding virtual any consensual practice as permissible, based on a kind of subjective morality.   It is not surprising that that subjective trend has found its way into religion.

 

This I think  captures the ambivalence in trying to square Eternal Truth in a world where truth is psychological and the "real" is subjective and what we think it is.  Obviously this portrays horribly severe psychological conflict.  He wanted Absolute Truth conveyed in terms of constantly changing science and - mysticism combined with logic- a combination of diametrically opposed ways of seeing the world, and when he could not reconcile the two, it nearly broke him.

And here we get a picture of the totality of the conflict between the scientific view of religion and the psychologial.   I am not sure when this was written but it reminds me of the "sensitivity training" exercises of the '70's in which people were encouraged to stop and "count the roses" - part of the alleged practice of turning toward feelings and eschewing the usual scientism of the day.   Of course it is ridiculous when seen here as he expresses it, but notice that the purpose of such an alleged exercise is to cultivate psychological sensitivity to the feelings, ideally bringing one more "in tune" with the Cosmos and yes, even God.  I believe that the "sexual freedom" movement grew again out of a trend to do "what feels good" as long as no one is harmed.   

That is a corruption of Utilitarianism which was considered as part of the pragmatism of the times, where if something "worked' and hurt no one, it was permitted.  I am opposed to that simplification and would include the spiritual good or damage a given practice implants, but this is not the place to go into that.

Obviously the conflict it produces can be highly damaging when it is misunderstood without including the higher potential of humans to overcome base desires in the pursit of God, the highest pleasure of all.   But that is for another day- for here and now it is clear that the seminarian was in great conflict trying to reconcile these two ways of seeing the world.  And it appears that Catholicism itself was in the turmoil, but again, ours is not to condemn- we all have our own problems!  ;)

And so could I, and will if anyone requests it

The next section in the article is about the Priesthood- your homework is to read that portion and identify the conflicts caused by the modern world with a 1200 year old philosophy ;)

This is not judgemental- that 800 year old philosophy might be exactly what God wants of us

Or then we could follow our hearts.   We each get to decide.

 

 

 

 

Mark hi.

Just to assure you I am monitoring...I am still getting richer by the day...so much money to be made...leaves too little time for what is important. Heh. I should be able to be serious this weekend. 

Thanks truly,

Rory

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 6/7/2021 at 1:16 AM, mfbukowski said:

And so could I, and will if anyone requests it

I request it. 

Honestly, I vacillate back and forth on the virtues of your style of philosophy as you have introduced it to me. I don't see much of a logical problem with it but something in me rebels at the idea of softening my death grip on the idea that truth resides in the world outside of us. A thousand reviewings of your siggy quote and I still struggle to see the light. 

I am yet young, and unacquainted with the nature of men and things, so I doubt my fonts of philosophical wisdom run particularly deep, so perhaps there is something yet for me to see in it. 

Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

I request it. 

Honestly, I vacillate back and forth on the virtues of your style of philosophy as you have introduced it to me. I don't see much of a logical problem with it but something in me rebels at the idea of softening my death grip on the idea that truth resides in the world outside of us. A thousand reviewings of your siggy quote and I still struggle to see the light. 

I am yet young, and unacquainted with the nature of men and things, so I doubt my fonts of philosophical wisdom run particularly deep, so perhaps there is something yet for me to see in it. 

Well it is hardly "mine"- that central view/ insight that human experience is all we can experience seems to me to be at first a tautology. By definition I would think, we cannot experience a world outside of human experience.

That might be a start, for you to explain how we can experience what we cannot experience, and how we can "know" that which we cannot experience.  ;)

But both American philosophy, phenomenology, Pragmatism all are based on variations of that theme, also ordinary language philosophy and variations on philosophy of language and science, and of course existentialism.

It's not like I made it up.  It IS postmodernism. :)

https://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/april13/rorty-041305.html

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to post
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

I request it. 

Honestly, I vacillate back and forth on the virtues of your style of philosophy as you have introduced it to me. I don't see much of a logical problem with it but something in me rebels at the idea of softening my death grip on the idea that truth resides in the world outside of us. A thousand reviewings of your siggy quote and I still struggle to see the light. 

I am yet young, and unacquainted with the nature of men and things, so I doubt my fonts of philosophical wisdom run particularly deep, so perhaps there is something yet for me to see in it. 

So does the above comment make sense?

Can we agree that chairs are not true, but sentences about them may or not be true?

"The chair is green"

How do you know if it is or is not? Is the chair out there in the world "actually " green, or is it that the light which reflects off it perceived by our eyes what we CALL "green"?

OR is the question itself confused?

The question is not important here, but did Joseph "really" see God?

ONLY if we call the experience he had, like the green in the chair, "reality".

What the cause of the green perception is, we cannot know any better than if what he saw was "God"

All we have in both cases is a description of an experience, not a description of the cause of the perception.

Does that help?

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to post
11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So does the above comment make sense?

Can we agree that chairs are not true, but sentences about them may or not be true?

"The chair is green"

How do you know if it is or is not? Is the chair out there in the world "actually " green, or is it that the light which reflects off it perceived by our eyes what we CALL "green"?

OR is the question itself confused?

The question is not important here, but did Joseph "really" see God?

ONLY if we call the experience he had, like the green in the chair, "reality".

What the cause of the green perception is, we cannot know any better than if what he saw was "God"

All we have in both cases is a description of an experience, not a description of the cause of the perception.

Does that help?

I would say that the chair is green insomuch that I have an experience of green as I observe it, and the experience of green seems inseparable from the experience of observing the chair. 

So, it's true that we only have a description of the experience, but that experience might as well be the reality...

...is that what you've been maintaining this whole time? 

Link to post
37 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

that experience might as well be the reality...

How would we know if it wasn’t?  We cannot stand outside our lives to do a reality check.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...