An interesting remark

[PatriceA]

And 75% of Catholics don’t attend Mass. Most Catholics believed in the Arian heresy before St. Athanasius combated it and the Church condemned it. What’s the point in quantity? I wonder how many ‘faithful’ Isrealites went to temple of Ba’al that Solomon built before it being torn down.

Getting off topic, but hate to point it out to you, Charismatic Masses are valid, at least they are in my diocese.

 

[mgoforth]

I didn’t say that.

I never intended to make this a personal disagreement between the two of us, but I believe that is almost exactly what you said.

empther:

The first post on this thread was written by Serious who is on the A-team.

He should have been told to shut up and go look at the Catholics who have performed heroically to serve their God and fellow man.

How exactly am I misquoting you???

 

[mgoforth]

You ever watch Questions to the Prime Minister on C-SPAN ?
A member of the House of Commons stands up and asks a question. The Prime Minister then stands up and replies. He speaks as long as he wants. No interruptions.
Eventually, the viewing audience gets both sides of the issues for their consideration.

That’s good television, and while I don’t know all the issues going on in England, I find the process fascinating and informative.

So was I supposed to ask you if you were finished before I replied? That’s ridiculous…we’re on the internet. You’re done making your point as soon as you hit “Submit Reply”.

 

[mgoforth]

It was me who wrote it, actually. The quote is accurate. (Minor correction, I’m not yet a Catholic – I’m still in RCIA – and I identify as reactionary, not conservative).

Can you explain what you mean by “reactionary”? Serious question, I haven’t heard that term before.

 

[Serious]

I don’t think its irrelevant. I also think its unethical to quote something another member of CAF wrote in another post without any information. You should at least refer to what thread you found this quote from so that others can see what was being discussed.

Well, since the cat is out of the bag (does anyone know which cat is out of what bag? ) here is a link to the post I quoted: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9134159&postcount=14 and the to thread it was presented forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=660518

The truth is that I am not particularly surprised to see the support for the view presented. I am somewhat sad to see the “reactionary” attitude, but it was to be expected. The only encouraging fact (which is probably very discouraging for you) is the open admission that your kind of catholics are a minority among all the catholics, and they are also shrinking in size. The ones who dissent from the ultra-orthodox view have probably been “chased away” from these boards by the outright hostility so readily expressed toward them. So much for “charity”…

 

[TS_Aquinas]

Getting off topic, but hate to point it out to you, Charismatic Masses are valid, at least they are in my diocese.

They are tolerated if they don’t stray from the order of Mass. Given the fact, like I originally posted, the movement mimics past condemned practices to the tee, it won’t be tolerated in the imminent future given the direction the Church is going, thanks be to God.

 

[sw85]

Can you explain what you mean by “reactionary”? Serious question, I haven’t heard that term before.

Sure. A friend related a useful heuristic. If liberalism were a church, “conservatives” would be its heretics and “reactionaries” would be its apostates.

The people we call “conservatives” are essentially classical liberals. The more honest ones (e.g., the neocons at National Review) admit this openly. It’s not that they oppose liberalism, they just don’t like the direction it’s taken recently. What they want to conserve is an earlier form of liberalism. Unsurprisingly, most of these “conservatives” are Protestants. I sometimes call this kind of conservatism “rah-rah-Americanism.”

I see Protestantism and liberalism growing out of the same theological errors, namely, the formal rejection of scholastic realism in the High Middle Ages. Michael Allen Gillespie draws a straight line from the nominalism of Ockham through the ages down to Stalin. He suggests nominalism appealed to people in the Middle Ages because of a general animus against Muslims, who had then roundly trounced Christendom in the Crusades, and who had reintroduced Aristotelianism into the West by way of the commentaries of the Muslim philosopher Averroes.

I reject all these errors. “Reactionary” is, I think, really an unfair appellation, since my views are the historically normative ones and modernity is a reaction against that spontaneous, organic, and natural order; but I embrace it in the spirit of making it my own.

To elucidate what I want a little more fully, I want a confessionally Catholic and monarchical state that formally supports and defends the Church, suppresses the evangelization of false religions, makes certain sins difficult or impossible to commit (blasphemy, “divorce,” pornography, contraception, etc.), which recognizes father-headed families as the foundational unit of society, subordinates economic goods to social and moral ones (i.e., honors the preferential option for the poor), and which promotes a genuinely Catholic culture – one in which the chaplet of divine mercy is prayed over radio and television for ten minutes at 3 PM on Fridays, and in which blasphemers like PZ Meyers get the kind of social revulsion George Zimmerman is presently receiving.

 

[mgoforth]

Sure. A friend related a useful heuristic. If liberalism were a church, “conservatives” would be its heretics and “reactionaries” would be its apostates.

The people we call “conservatives” are essentially classical liberals. The more honest ones (e.g., the neocons at National Review) admit this openly. It’s not that they oppose liberalism, they just don’t like the direction it’s taken recently. What they want to conserve is an earlier form of liberalism. Unsurprisingly, most of these “conservatives” are Protestants. I sometimes call this kind of conservatism “rah-rah-Americanism.”

I see Protestantism and liberalism growing out of the same theological errors, namely, the formal rejection of scholastic realism in the High Middle Ages. Michael Allen Gillespie draws a straight line from the nominalism of Ockham through the ages down to Stalin. He suggests nominalism appealed to people in the Middle Ages because of a general animus against Muslims, who had then roundly trounced Christendom in the Crusades, and who had reintroduced Aristotelianism into the West by way of the commentaries of the Muslim philosopher Averroes.

I reject all these errors. “Reactionary” is, I think, really an unfair appellation, since my views are the historically normative ones and modernity is a reaction against that spontaneous, organic, and natural order; but I embrace it in the spirit of making it my own.

To elucidate what I want a little more fully, I want a confessionally Catholic and monarchical state that formally supports and defends the Church, suppresses the evangelization of false religions, makes certain sins difficult or impossible to commit (blasphemy, “divorce,” pornography, contraception, etc.), which recognizes father-headed families as the foundational unit of society, subordinates economic goods to social and moral ones (i.e., honors the preferential option for the poor), and which promotes a genuinely Catholic culture – one in which the chaplet of divine mercy is prayed over radio and television for ten minutes at 3 PM on Fridays, and in which blasphemers like PZ Meyers get the kind of social revulsion George Zimmerman is presently receiving.

Thanks for your reply. To be honest, I’m torn over many of your suggestions in the last paragraph. I do believe that Christianity is the one true faith of course, and that Catholicism is the fullness of that truth. What I anticipate though is that setting up a society like the one you propose would lead to more evil than good through the fallen human tendency to persecute our enemies.

Instead of making the state officially Catholic, I’d rather see the errors (both liberal and conservative) that have crept into the Church over the last century rooted out and condemned. What I think America needs right now is a gut-check among many of our Bishops, where they firmly reject the “non-negotiable” aspects of society (abortion, birth control, homosexuality, etc) with no apologies made to supporters of those sins, and set crystal clear standards of good Catholic behavior for all the priests and laity in their respective diocese.

Frankly, I’d also like to see many more hell-fire homilies being preached, because I think the members of our Church (yes, myself included) need that kind of tough-love message on at least a monthly basis considering the evil culture we live in.

 

[Robertanthony]

Sure. A friend related a useful heuristic. If liberalism were a church, “conservatives” would be its heretics and “reactionaries” would be its apostates.

The people we call “conservatives” are essentially classical liberals. The more honest ones (e.g., the neocons at National Review) admit this openly. It’s not that they oppose liberalism, they just don’t like the direction it’s taken recently. What they want to conserve is an earlier form of liberalism. Unsurprisingly, most of these “conservatives” are Protestants. I sometimes call this kind of conservatism “rah-rah-Americanism.”

I see Protestantism and liberalism growing out of the same theological errors, namely, the formal rejection of scholastic realism in the High Middle Ages. Michael Allen Gillespie draws a straight line from the nominalism of Ockham through the ages down to Stalin. He suggests nominalism appealed to people in the Middle Ages because of a general animus against Muslims, who had then roundly trounced Christendom in the Crusades, and who had reintroduced Aristotelianism into the West by way of the commentaries of the Muslim philosopher Averroes.

I reject all these errors. “Reactionary” is, I think, really an unfair appellation, since my views are the historically normative ones and modernity is a reaction against that spontaneous, organic, and natural order; but I embrace it in the spirit of making it my own.

To elucidate what** I want **a little more fully, I want a confessionally Catholic and monarchical state that formally supports and defends the Church, suppresses the evangelization of false religions, makes certain sins difficult or impossible to commit (blasphemy, “divorce,” pornography, contraception, etc.), which recognizes father-headed families as the foundational unit of society, subordinates economic goods to social and moral ones (i.e., honors the preferential option for the poor), and which promotes a genuinely Catholic culture – one in which the chaplet of divine mercy is prayed over radio and television for ten minutes at 3 PM on Fridays, and in which blasphemers like PZ Meyers get the kind of social revulsion George Zimmerman is presently receiving.

Anything but edifying is the way it goes. Pick which one it is: Martha Stewart making cupcakes, an infomercial or reruns of a 1977 afternoon soap opera. You can’t feed people any spiritual substance, you want to saturate them with a culture of death, insignificance and void. Keeps the devil “happy”.

 

[Calgar]

The ones who dissent from the ultra-orthodox view have probably been “chased away” from these boards by the outright hostility so readily expressed toward them. So much for “charity”…

You sound like my father. A devout atheist who constantly starts arguments with anyone who doesn’t believe in his worldview. While at the same time trying to make it seem as if he’s just making polite conversation.

Atheist’s don’t have much to be proud of either. They have been responsible for some of the most horrific crimes against humanity imaginable.

 

[sw85]

Thanks for your reply. To be honest, I’m torn over many of your suggestions in the last paragraph. I do believe that Christianity is the one true faith of course, and that Catholicism is the fullness of that truth. What I anticipate though is that setting up a society like the one you propose would lead to more evil than good through the fallen human tendency to persecute our enemies.

I don’t think it’s possible to escape a society with evil in it (as I mention in the other thread to which Serious linked). The masses of men are sinners, after all. Presently society is not any less persecutorial or violent than a Catholic one would be; the violence and persecution just takes a less obvious form. For instance, we no longer have the naked persecution of Stalinist Russia or Calles-era Mexico. Instead we get Brezhnevism and legal jihad. Instead of outright genocide, you get stealth genocide in the form of abortion (it’s easy to lose perspective of the fact that the abortionist holocaust in America has already resulted in several times more deaths than the whole of the Holocaust). Instead of celebrating lawlessness and violence outright, we encourage certain subgroups to enact violence against their enemies and then harass anyone who criticizes those subgroups (usually by getting them fired from their jobs, denied tenure, etc.).

If we’re stuck with sin, that only makes it more important to have a society and a state that recognizes this fact and acts accordingly. Liberal society works on the assumption that man is perfect or at least self-perfectible. He isn’t, and that’s why we’re getting all these problems as liberal society unwinds: poverty, illegitimacy, the breakdown of the family, unreason, ignorance, vigilantism, etc.

Instead of making the state officially Catholic, I’d rather see the errors (both liberal and conservative) that have crept into the Church over the last century rooted out and condemned. What I think America needs right now is a gut-check among many of our Bishops, where they firmly reject the “non-negotiable” aspects of society (abortion, birth control, homosexuality, etc) with no apologies made to supporters of those sins, and set crystal clear standards of good Catholic behavior for all the priests and laity in their respective diocese.

Frankly, I’d also like to see many more hell-fire homilies being preached, because I think the members of our Church (yes, myself included) need that kind of tough-love message on at least a monthly basis considering the evil culture we live in.

I would support all these things, too. In fact I don’t think they are an opposing goal to confessionalism; rather they are a necessary prerequisite to it. The Church is not going to be established until it begins to insist on its rights. For that to happen, it needs to have a clear vision of itself and its role in the world – a vision that has been muddled in the postconciliar age.

 

[mgoforth]

I don’t think it’s possible to escape a society with evil in it (as I mention in the other thread to which Serious linked). The masses of men are sinners, after all. Presently society is not any less persecutorial or violent than a Catholic one would be; the violence and persecution just takes a less obvious form. For instance, we no longer have the naked persecution of Stalinist Russia or Calles-era Mexico. Instead we get Brezhnevism and legal jihad. Instead of outright genocide, you get stealth genocide in the form of abortion (it’s easy to lose perspective of the fact that the abortionist holocaust in America has already resulted in several times more deaths than the whole of the Holocaust). Instead of celebrating lawlessness and violence outright, we encourage certain subgroups to enact violence against their enemies and then harass anyone who criticizes those subgroups (usually by getting them fired from their jobs, denied tenure, etc.).

If we’re stuck with sin, that only makes it more important to have a society and a state that recognizes this fact and acts accordingly. Liberal society works on the assumption that man is perfect or at least self-perfectible. He isn’t, and that’s why we’re getting all these problems as liberal society unwinds: poverty, illegitimacy, the breakdown of the family, unreason, ignorance, vigilantism, etc.

I would support all these things, too. In fact I don’t think they are an opposing goal to confessionalism; rather they are a necessary prerequisite to it. The Church is not going to be established until it begins to insist on its rights. For that to happen, it needs to have a clear vision of itself and its role in the world – a vision that has been muddled in the postconciliar age.

Hmmm…you make good points here. Like I said, I’m torn. Can you suggest anything I could read to get a better understanding of this viewpoint?

 

[JDaniel]

I read the following little rant, and started to wonder…

What is your opinion about it? Agree? Disagree?

Serious:

How strange - that sinners sin. How utterly strange!

God bless,
jd

 

[Serious]

You sound like my father. A devout atheist who constantly starts arguments with anyone who doesn’t believe in his worldview. While at the same time trying to make it seem as if he’s just making polite conversation.

If the conversation is polite, then what are you talking about? I am trying to be polite in disagreement.

Atheist’s don’t have much to be proud of either. They have been responsible for some of the most horrific crimes against humanity imaginable.

Well, you picked a few human monsters, who happened to be atheists and blame atheism for their acts. I have this sneaky suspicion, that you would be very upset if I would issue a mass condemnation of catholicism for the acts of some pedophiles, who happened to be catholic. Aren’t you just a tad hypocritical? I think you are. :tsktsk:

 

[vsedriver]

I read the following little rant, and started to wonder…

What is your opinion about it? Agree? Disagree?

yes, there are sinners in the Catholic Church.

 

[JDaniel]

What is “the A-team corner” in the context of this forum?

Perhaps I’m wrong, because I have no idea what you’re talking about.

FB:

Well, we might be called the “B-Team”, which stands for believers team. Or, we may be called the “T-Team,” which stands for theists’ team. Now, I wonder what the “A-Team” could possibly stand for?

God bless,
jd

 

[sw85]

Hmmm…you make good points here. Like I said, I’m torn. Can you suggest anything I could read to get a better understanding of this viewpoint?

Sure. I will send you a private message containing some suggested reading material – some books but many essays that are available online, as well.

 

[Bezant]

“Many (perhaps even most) Catholics are heretics and functional apostates. They want to have contraceptive sex with their live-in girlfriends. They want to receive communion unworthily the two masses a year they actually attend. They want to drop $3 in the offertory basket and then criticize churches for not doing more to help the poor. Most Catholics, frankly, suck.”

Not a little pessimistic or unfair. It’s cliche to say everyone has his own sins and failures, but it’s true. It’s unfair, in my opinion, to say ‘most Catholics sucks’ and only have a go at the most obvious sinners, when even the most the most outwardly committed lay people and ordained have serious issues. Last week I was speaking with a longtime friend – a devoutly committed Catholic – and she shared a few things with me I would never expect of her.

 

[Calgar]

If the conversation is polite, then what are you talking about? I am trying to be polite in disagreement.

Then why add the: **So much for “charity”… ** or the tsktsk ? You ARE trying to needle others.

 Well, you picked a few human monsters, who happened to be atheists and blame atheism for their acts.

Why not?

 I have this sneaky suspicion, that you would be very upset if I would issue a mass condemnation of catholicism for the acts of some pedophiles, who happened to be catholic.

Not really. I’m not catholic.

 Aren't you just a tad hypocritical? I think you are.

Aren’t we all?

 

[Serious]

Then why add the: **So much for “charity”… ** or the tsktsk ? You ARE trying to needle others.

When I see inconsitency,I like to point it out. But not impolitely.

Why not?

Because it is not true.

Not really. I’m not catholic.

Opps. My mistake. Then a joke is in order: “Muslims do not acknowledge Jesus as God. Protestants do not acknowledge the authority of the pope. Southern Baptists do not acknowledge each other in the liquor store or at Hooters”. or another: “Why don’t Baptists make love standing up? Answer: because they do not want others to think that they are dancing”… all in good humor of course.

Aren’t we all?

Speak for yourself.