F
Feanor2
Guest
Well why quote from the Baltimore Catechism and not the current one?
Bishop Schneider: Christians Are Spiritual Soldiers Who Belong to an Army of Victors
- Status
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
The problem is that too many Catholics, see the battle against evil as not against the appetites within themselves, but rather, against those “others,” in the world whom they see as the agents of Satan. As “Soldiers in the Army of Christ” they are at war with those “others,” of the world.
It feeds the prejudices that people have rather than look to bring the Good News to of Jesus Christ to them, through mercy and love.
Jim
It feeds the prejudices that people have rather than look to bring the Good News to of Jesus Christ to them, through mercy and love.
Jim
F
Feanor2
Guest
Yes. His reference to fighting “ambiguity” in the faith is a clear swipe at the Holy Father.
This is the veiled language of those opposed to the work of Francis.
This is the veiled language of those opposed to the work of Francis.
R
Roguish
Guest
From the article under discussion in this thread:
Did anybody read the whole article? I did. (Roguish pats himself on the back.)
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Of course we are.
The fact that the updated Catechism decided to do away with the whole “soldiers of Christ” and “my life is a fight against evil” motif because it didn’t sound "peaceful: enough or a few nuts on the fringes would have used it as an excuse to do bad things, doesn’t make us any less “soldiers of Christ” in the fight for our souls.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Well, a lot of Catholics think a lot of things about sexuality and not having to go to Mass on Sunday too.
People are going to think what they want regardless of how we try to finesse the words.
It would be better to keep the words and explain them, rather than get rid of the words because somebody might get upset.
Last edited:
R
Roguish
Guest
Roguish, we read the whole article. What’s your point?
Well, my point is that Bishop Schneider spends most of the article explaining the quotes he has selected with references, e.g. from Aquinas, St. Ignatius, etc. That’s my point.
Last edited:
E
Edwyn
Guest
Then don’t be one! Do not assume the worst about others.
Both Bishop Schneider and Pope Francis, indeed any and all bishops, have the Holy Spirit guiding them, and I am pretty sure both prayed to Him before writing and saying anything.
Both Bishop Schneider and Pope Francis, indeed any and all bishops, have the Holy Spirit guiding them, and I am pretty sure both prayed to Him before writing and saying anything.
A
AndrewAxland
Guest
That doesn’t make the dog whistles any less shrill.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
These are some fair points, so let’s discuss (not argue, just discuss) a little further.
First off, this bishop comes from Kazakhstan, where Stalin used to send all the Catholics he deported from other parts of the USSR, and put them in concentration camps. His parents were put in a gulag and were involved with an “underground Catholic” movement and he had to make his own First Holy Communion in secret. That sort of thing would tend to color one’s viewpoint as an adult, if you grew up basically having to fight to survive. I also see he is a member of the Canons Regular of the Holy Cross of Coimbra
so you and he have something in common (though he joined in Germany).
Second, the whole “church militant” movement is being advocated in USA as maybe a fight against evil, involving people who have very little chance of actually being martyred for their faith. But this bishop likely had a good chance of becoming a martyr himself at least when he was young, and he probably knew other people who maybe actually did become martyrs. Setting aside the bishop and just looking at stuff that, say, Cardinal Dolan and his auxiliaries preach about in New York City in USA, the US bishops do preach about people who get martyred in other countries. It’s not to make their audience hate the Muslims (in NYC, most of the congregation is going to be super liberal anyway, and wouldn’t buy into that), but rather to emphasize how important our faith is and also remind us that our “problems” are very “first world” compared to these poor people in some faraway country getting beheaded or shot for being Catholic.
Now there are a few traditional priests in USA who push the “Church Militant” thing, partly because they think we have become too wimpy over the years and because they see it as a good way to get men more interested in the Church again (even though probably 80 percent of their audience is middle-aged and older women…people have made jokes that if God called up his spiritual “army” in USA it would be all these older ladies) and partly because it sells to conservatives who are worried about family values and such. And I can see that maybe being seen as controversial or as pushing the wrong message.
But when a guy who had to sneak around in secret making his first Holy Communion and had parents in a prison camp for being Catholic is making this speech, it’s a bit hard to tell him he needs to tone it down. The US also has a sad history of not wanting to acknowledge the bad things that Catholic clergy and ordinary Catholics went through in certain countries during the Cold War and even afterwards, sometimes because they are afraid of repercussions on the Catholics who are there now and sometimes because they are trying to make peace or move forward or not open a political can of worms, or whatever…and people’s genuine martyrdoms and serious hardships and many saints’ sacrifices just get hidden away, until it’s considered more “politically correct” to bring them up.
First off, this bishop comes from Kazakhstan, where Stalin used to send all the Catholics he deported from other parts of the USSR, and put them in concentration camps. His parents were put in a gulag and were involved with an “underground Catholic” movement and he had to make his own First Holy Communion in secret. That sort of thing would tend to color one’s viewpoint as an adult, if you grew up basically having to fight to survive. I also see he is a member of the Canons Regular of the Holy Cross of Coimbra
so you and he have something in common (though he joined in Germany).Second, the whole “church militant” movement is being advocated in USA as maybe a fight against evil, involving people who have very little chance of actually being martyred for their faith. But this bishop likely had a good chance of becoming a martyr himself at least when he was young, and he probably knew other people who maybe actually did become martyrs. Setting aside the bishop and just looking at stuff that, say, Cardinal Dolan and his auxiliaries preach about in New York City in USA, the US bishops do preach about people who get martyred in other countries. It’s not to make their audience hate the Muslims (in NYC, most of the congregation is going to be super liberal anyway, and wouldn’t buy into that), but rather to emphasize how important our faith is and also remind us that our “problems” are very “first world” compared to these poor people in some faraway country getting beheaded or shot for being Catholic.
Now there are a few traditional priests in USA who push the “Church Militant” thing, partly because they think we have become too wimpy over the years and because they see it as a good way to get men more interested in the Church again (even though probably 80 percent of their audience is middle-aged and older women…people have made jokes that if God called up his spiritual “army” in USA it would be all these older ladies) and partly because it sells to conservatives who are worried about family values and such. And I can see that maybe being seen as controversial or as pushing the wrong message.
But when a guy who had to sneak around in secret making his first Holy Communion and had parents in a prison camp for being Catholic is making this speech, it’s a bit hard to tell him he needs to tone it down. The US also has a sad history of not wanting to acknowledge the bad things that Catholic clergy and ordinary Catholics went through in certain countries during the Cold War and even afterwards, sometimes because they are afraid of repercussions on the Catholics who are there now and sometimes because they are trying to make peace or move forward or not open a political can of worms, or whatever…and people’s genuine martyrdoms and serious hardships and many saints’ sacrifices just get hidden away, until it’s considered more “politically correct” to bring them up.
A
Agathon
Guest
His Apostle Paul did and for that he was commended by Christ.
A
Agathon
Guest
I guess the Apostle Paul is in the same category as these “Muslims” you speak of.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
“Onward Christian Soldiers” was written by an Anglican.
S
stpurl
Guest
Please, I am a ‘target audience’ in that as a Christian I listen to the words of other Christians, and I heard no such thing.
One is tempted to wonder just how much of the accusations hurled (with absolutely nothing to back them up; where is the proof of what the ‘target audience’ heard other than simply 'what you say") comes from a lashing out at persons who have been ‘labeled’ by the lasher based on a perception that the person is 'insert label here" and therefore because that person is labeled A, he MUST contain all the traits of B-K, and therefore ‘x words’ said by that person must lead to x doctrine and interpretation, because that’s what the LASHER thinks, not necessarily at all what the speaker and his ‘target audience’ think or hear.
One is tempted to wonder just how much of the accusations hurled (with absolutely nothing to back them up; where is the proof of what the ‘target audience’ heard other than simply 'what you say") comes from a lashing out at persons who have been ‘labeled’ by the lasher based on a perception that the person is 'insert label here" and therefore because that person is labeled A, he MUST contain all the traits of B-K, and therefore ‘x words’ said by that person must lead to x doctrine and interpretation, because that’s what the LASHER thinks, not necessarily at all what the speaker and his ‘target audience’ think or hear.
S
stpurl
Guest
Why is it a swipe at the Holy Father?
For centuries, Catholic priests, bishops, cardinals, Popes, and even lay people, have spoken and preached and exhorted fellow members of the faith to be on guard againist ambiguity of teaching. Why is it somehow only now under the current Holy Father (and aren’t there SEVERAL people out there who have made statements considered ambiguous. . .cough, Father Martin, cough Hans Kung, cough Teillard de Chardin, cough various priests, bishops, theologians, DREs, parents, teachers, blah blah blah, often well-meant. . . but who are in fact incorrect?) that a person only has to mention “Catholics need to be aware of the dangers to the Faith when there are questions regarding ambiguities in teaching” for the ‘dog whistles’ to assume, “OMG, that’s a swipe at Pope FRANCIS”.
Isn’t it rather STUNNING that there are people on here talking about Bishop Schneider’s words as being ambiguous in the sense that THEY see him saying X (and others do not), but hey, in THIS case, it’s perfectly FINE to 'question the ambiguity!!!"
For centuries, Catholic priests, bishops, cardinals, Popes, and even lay people, have spoken and preached and exhorted fellow members of the faith to be on guard againist ambiguity of teaching. Why is it somehow only now under the current Holy Father (and aren’t there SEVERAL people out there who have made statements considered ambiguous. . .cough, Father Martin, cough Hans Kung, cough Teillard de Chardin, cough various priests, bishops, theologians, DREs, parents, teachers, blah blah blah, often well-meant. . . but who are in fact incorrect?) that a person only has to mention “Catholics need to be aware of the dangers to the Faith when there are questions regarding ambiguities in teaching” for the ‘dog whistles’ to assume, “OMG, that’s a swipe at Pope FRANCIS”.
Isn’t it rather STUNNING that there are people on here talking about Bishop Schneider’s words as being ambiguous in the sense that THEY see him saying X (and others do not), but hey, in THIS case, it’s perfectly FINE to 'question the ambiguity!!!"
A
AndrewAxland
Guest
“Ambiguity” is a conservative Catholic dog whistle for “Pope Francis”. If you didn’t know that already.
S
stpurl
Guest
I’ve heard the term related to the documents of Vatican 2 for decades, among other things. But I hadn’t heard ‘dog whistle’ until your use of the term.
Since what was once called liberal is often called progressive (a term that is less political and indeed accurately reflects the usual tendency of the person to ‘go forward’, I prefer rather than ‘conservative’, a term that has likewise been politicized and unfairly reflects the more ‘traditional’ type person, the term ‘contemplative’. A contemplative person is assessing things, therefore assembling them and perusing them. A contemplative person is in a state where he or she may move forward after the contemplation, or may move sideways or even backward (and there is nothing wrong with going ‘back’. If you’re walking toward a cliff, going ‘back’ is often the prudent thing to do!). But the important aspect is the contemplation, through which a reasoned decision may be made in what direction to go.
Since what was once called liberal is often called progressive (a term that is less political and indeed accurately reflects the usual tendency of the person to ‘go forward’, I prefer rather than ‘conservative’, a term that has likewise been politicized and unfairly reflects the more ‘traditional’ type person, the term ‘contemplative’. A contemplative person is assessing things, therefore assembling them and perusing them. A contemplative person is in a state where he or she may move forward after the contemplation, or may move sideways or even backward (and there is nothing wrong with going ‘back’. If you’re walking toward a cliff, going ‘back’ is often the prudent thing to do!). But the important aspect is the contemplation, through which a reasoned decision may be made in what direction to go.
A
AndrewAxland
Guest
Wikepedia has an article explaining the concept of dog whistles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics?oldformat=true
As for your description of “contemplative”, everything you wrote applies to me, and I am so far left on the progressive side of the scale that I think Pope Francis is too conservative.
And I do distinguish between Traditionalists and Conservative Catholics.
S
stpurl
Guest
I’m aware of what ‘dog whistle’ means. I just had not heard it applied to any Catholics until you used the term in this thread.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
The Bishops personal life behind the Iron curtain probably attributes to his narrow view of the Church, being Vatican II took place before he migrated to Germany at age 12 in 1971.
Also, it probably accounts for his quoting The Baltimore Catechism which has been replaced long ago.
Also, his parents were sent to the Gulag, not because they were Catholics but because they were Germans, whom Stalin imprisoned after WWII.
Jim
Also, it probably accounts for his quoting The Baltimore Catechism which has been replaced long ago.
Also, his parents were sent to the Gulag, not because they were Catholics but because they were Germans, whom Stalin imprisoned after WWII.
Jim
- Status