- Status
L
Lamentabili
Guest
The Remnant actually just posted a pretty good piece about the Rome/Society negotiations:
remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-0415-dupuy-ides-of-april-sspx-rome.htm
Also, for the record, Catholic Family News is owned and run by Mr. John Vennari, not Fr. Gruner.
remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-0415-dupuy-ides-of-april-sspx-rome.htm
Also, for the record, Catholic Family News is owned and run by Mr. John Vennari, not Fr. Gruner.
Z
zab
Guest
John Vennari is the editor. The publisher is Fr. Gruner
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
Rusty nails (Scotch and Drambuie)
J
JReducation
Guest
The Remnant is like any other news media. It depends on the author. There are some authors who are excellent writers and very objective. There are others who are excellent writers, but have an ax to grind. The problem is that they’re such good writers that the average reader is impressed by them and follows along. Then there are some whom you can see that they just want to bash and bash. They don’t feel good about their faith unless they trash have the Church.
After you’ve read it enough times, you start to notice the difference. I do this with all newspapers. I read the intelligent and objective writers. I skip over everyone else. I’m not about to waste my time with someone who has an agenda or someone who wants to rant. I want to hear from someone with whom I can dialogue. St. Francis once said that if you couldn’t dialogue, just leave town. Don’t bother with that kind of people. He was right. They’re only going to suck you into an argument.
When you read the Remnant beware the ranters and the sneaky people with agendas. Just stick to the people who are putting something on the table for everyone to consider, not to convert you to their point of view.
Fraternally,
Br.JR, FFV
After you’ve read it enough times, you start to notice the difference. I do this with all newspapers. I read the intelligent and objective writers. I skip over everyone else. I’m not about to waste my time with someone who has an agenda or someone who wants to rant. I want to hear from someone with whom I can dialogue. St. Francis once said that if you couldn’t dialogue, just leave town. Don’t bother with that kind of people. He was right. They’re only going to suck you into an argument.
When you read the Remnant beware the ranters and the sneaky people with agendas. Just stick to the people who are putting something on the table for everyone to consider, not to convert you to their point of view.
Fraternally,
Br.JR, FFV
R
Rich_C
Guest
Haha, what a breath of fresh air. CAF is so humorless most days. If I had Internet at home or at the bar I’d drink cheap beer while I read them all.
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
I would argue that someone who is opinionated or has an axe to grind is not ipso facto to be ditched and dismissed. If they have a secret agenda, then you can expose their fallacies or calumnies or errors and leave them, as it were, naked for all to see. That does a service for all those who might be taken in by their impressive rhetoric, speech or style but failed to realize the substance of what it was they were truly being imbibed with.
As for those with an agenda or axe to grind, it can be useful to probe the reasons or causes for it. Sometimes people have been scandalized and the real fault, ultimately, is with the one who did the scandalizing and from that (bad) example we can learn to be more prudent in our own example and policies about what sort of an example to set. At least opinionated people generally lay out frankly their reasons and problems and so you can tackle the issues specifically and make recommendations.
But, yes, this frequently requires the use of argumentation and not all people have the stomach or strength to engage in it (at least not effectively). Sometimes it can possibly arise out of lukewarmness or a lack of fortitude or conviction.
J
James224
Guest
I agree. I don’t have to go to the NO to show my obedience. You’re right and you made me think. I could say more but I will leave it at that.
J
JReducation
Guest
I certainly don’t claim to be infallible on this matter, nor is it one that calls for a precise science. Your point of view can certainly be considered. For me, I rather stick with what Franciscans have done for 800+ years. We have always avoided every conflict in the Church, by following Francis’ mandate never to engage in debate or arguments. “Just turn your back and leave,” was his command. It all began when Francis went to the Fourth Lateran Council and refused to participate in the debates. Bonaventure would later do the same when he was named a cardinal. He would refuse to engage in debates. The method has always been, make your point, but avoid arguments and debates.
This always reminds me of Anthony of Padua. Long before he was ordained a priest, Br. Anthony was known for being a biblical genius. When heretics would arrive in a town, people would send for Anthony to combat the heresy. Anthony was under orders never to engage in debates. So, he would wait until the heretic left and then went to the place and converted everyone back, without having to engage in a debate. He was such an excellent preacher and such a masterful scholar that whatever the heretics said, he could dismantle in five minutes. He got a reputation for being a threat to the heretics, but the truth was that he never debated them. He simply outsmarted them. He knew that it was useless to hear them out, because they were going to rant and not let him get a word in. He was also very fair. When he saw that there was a good reason for their anger, he would admit that too and encourage his audience to fix the wrong. The tradition is not one of lending a deaf ear, but one of non engagement unless it’s with rules of deportment.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
C
CrushModernists
Guest
J
JReducation
Guest
But we have to be very careful what we applaud and what we say. There is a major difference between the Church Militant and the Church Belligerent. As Archbishop Chaput said about two years ago, there is a group out there that believes that they own the Church. We do not own the Church.
Secondly, there seems to be a growing tendency among some Catholics to forget that the goal for every human being is to be a saint, not to be a winner. To defend the faith while being rude, arrogant, inconsiderate of others and taking great pleasure is in saying nasty things about others is not the path to sainthood. St. Augustine was very clear on this. He taught us that to shout out the faults and failings of another with smugness only brings condemnation and judgment on the self.
There are writers in many Catholic periodicals, blogs and forums who take great delight in condescension. Those are to be avoided, because they are not leading to a genuine renewal of the Church that is in full communion with the governance of the Church. Rather, they are leading to a renovation that is in communion with their vision of what the Church should be. They don’t own the Church.
Renewal begins with self. One must learn to master one’s thoughts, one’s passions, one’s desires, one’s tongue and one’s impulses. As we grow in self-renewal, we convey to others the faith as it is not as we think it should be. This was the secret of the saints.
We tend to like to read into the saints that they were terrors against error. The truth is that there was nothing terrifying about them at all. Their bark was bigger than their bite. Historians have often created an image of them that is pleasing to the reader. When we look at them through the eyes of ascetical and mystical theology, their power against error was in their peace. They made their point and they moved on. They let nothing take away their peace, nor did they allow themselves to say an unkind word against any individual. They spoke in very objective language. Kind of what we would say today, “If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, pass it up.”
Some writers in the Remnant and other places too are not objective. They target individuals or groups of individuals. They are not Church Militant, but Church Belligerent. By all means, read as much as you can; but always ask the all important question. "If I said this this way, would it get me closer to a Francis, Dominic, Bernard, Francis de Sales, Philip Neri, Teresa of Calcutta, John Paul II and many other great preachers and teachers of the Church? These men and women reformed their world and became saints a the same time. You couldn’t be in their presence and not experience peace. The kind of peace that only comes from great trust in Providence.
I’ve been in the presence of two of them several times and have always come away in a state of awe. Bl. Mother Teresa always left me with the feeling that there were no other people in the world, but she and I. Even when she was offering a correction, which she did quite often, there was a mother’s voice in it. Bl. John Paul, whom I met three times, besides attending several of his outdoor masses, was a man who spoke to you and looked at you in a way that let you know that he truly cared about you and no matter what you were, good or bad, he was there as your brother, not your prosecutor.
I remember an audience that he had with our superiors and their councils. I was present, because I was on one of the councils. He expressed his concern that the Franciscan family was not moving back to the 13th century quickly enough, as had been indicated by Perfectae Caritatis and Vita Consacrata. But you never got the feeling that he was scolding you or correcting you. He started from a simple point.
“At the beginning of your order, my predecessor, Pope Innocent, sent your Holy Father and his brothers to bring their way of life to the laity. Today the laity is in great need of Francis spirituality and his worldview. Only the Franciscans can teach it. If you keep this spirituality and worldview within your friaries and don’t bring the laity into it, you will have failed Peter and your Holy Father. Today, once again, Peter commands you to bring Francis to the Church. No other mission should take precedence over this.”
He made his point without going on the attack. He said what he wanted us to do, without calling us a failure. We felt like failures, not because he called us a failure. We felt like failures because what he said was true. We had failed to bring Francis’ fidelity to the Gospel and his love for the Church to the laity.
Bl. John Paul and Bl. Mother Teresa were the two people who taught me the difference between the Church Militant and the Church Belligerent. When I read what’s on the internet or in periodicals, I skip over the Belligerent.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
Secondly, there seems to be a growing tendency among some Catholics to forget that the goal for every human being is to be a saint, not to be a winner. To defend the faith while being rude, arrogant, inconsiderate of others and taking great pleasure is in saying nasty things about others is not the path to sainthood. St. Augustine was very clear on this. He taught us that to shout out the faults and failings of another with smugness only brings condemnation and judgment on the self.
There are writers in many Catholic periodicals, blogs and forums who take great delight in condescension. Those are to be avoided, because they are not leading to a genuine renewal of the Church that is in full communion with the governance of the Church. Rather, they are leading to a renovation that is in communion with their vision of what the Church should be. They don’t own the Church.
Renewal begins with self. One must learn to master one’s thoughts, one’s passions, one’s desires, one’s tongue and one’s impulses. As we grow in self-renewal, we convey to others the faith as it is not as we think it should be. This was the secret of the saints.
We tend to like to read into the saints that they were terrors against error. The truth is that there was nothing terrifying about them at all. Their bark was bigger than their bite. Historians have often created an image of them that is pleasing to the reader. When we look at them through the eyes of ascetical and mystical theology, their power against error was in their peace. They made their point and they moved on. They let nothing take away their peace, nor did they allow themselves to say an unkind word against any individual. They spoke in very objective language. Kind of what we would say today, “If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, pass it up.”
Some writers in the Remnant and other places too are not objective. They target individuals or groups of individuals. They are not Church Militant, but Church Belligerent. By all means, read as much as you can; but always ask the all important question. "If I said this this way, would it get me closer to a Francis, Dominic, Bernard, Francis de Sales, Philip Neri, Teresa of Calcutta, John Paul II and many other great preachers and teachers of the Church? These men and women reformed their world and became saints a the same time. You couldn’t be in their presence and not experience peace. The kind of peace that only comes from great trust in Providence.
I’ve been in the presence of two of them several times and have always come away in a state of awe. Bl. Mother Teresa always left me with the feeling that there were no other people in the world, but she and I. Even when she was offering a correction, which she did quite often, there was a mother’s voice in it. Bl. John Paul, whom I met three times, besides attending several of his outdoor masses, was a man who spoke to you and looked at you in a way that let you know that he truly cared about you and no matter what you were, good or bad, he was there as your brother, not your prosecutor.
I remember an audience that he had with our superiors and their councils. I was present, because I was on one of the councils. He expressed his concern that the Franciscan family was not moving back to the 13th century quickly enough, as had been indicated by Perfectae Caritatis and Vita Consacrata. But you never got the feeling that he was scolding you or correcting you. He started from a simple point.
“At the beginning of your order, my predecessor, Pope Innocent, sent your Holy Father and his brothers to bring their way of life to the laity. Today the laity is in great need of Francis spirituality and his worldview. Only the Franciscans can teach it. If you keep this spirituality and worldview within your friaries and don’t bring the laity into it, you will have failed Peter and your Holy Father. Today, once again, Peter commands you to bring Francis to the Church. No other mission should take precedence over this.”
He made his point without going on the attack. He said what he wanted us to do, without calling us a failure. We felt like failures, not because he called us a failure. We felt like failures because what he said was true. We had failed to bring Francis’ fidelity to the Gospel and his love for the Church to the laity.
Bl. John Paul and Bl. Mother Teresa were the two people who taught me the difference between the Church Militant and the Church Belligerent. When I read what’s on the internet or in periodicals, I skip over the Belligerent.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
T
TimothyH
Guest
Didn’t St. Anthony preach to the fish in a pond once? Or was that someone else?I certainly don’t claim to be infallible on this matter, nor is it one that calls for a precise science. Your point of view can certainly be considered. For me, I rather stick with what Franciscans have done for 800+ years. We have always avoided every conflict in the Church, by following Francis’ mandate never to engage in debate or arguments. “Just turn your back and leave,” was his command. It all began when Francis went to the Fourth Lateran Council and refused to participate in the debates. Bonaventure would later do the same when he was named a cardinal. He would refuse to engage in debates. The method has always been, make your point, but avoid arguments and debates.
This always reminds me of Anthony of Padua. Long before he was ordained a priest, Br. Anthony was known for being a biblical genius. When heretics would arrive in a town, people would send for Anthony to combat the heresy. Anthony was under orders never to engage in debates. So, he would wait until the heretic left and then went to the place and converted everyone back, without having to engage in a debate. He was such an excellent preacher and such a masterful scholar that whatever the heretics said, he could dismantle in five minutes. He got a reputation for being a threat to the heretics, but the truth was that he never debated them. He simply outsmarted them. He knew that it was useless to hear them out, because they were going to rant and not let him get a word in. He was also very fair. When he saw that there was a good reason for their anger, he would admit that too and encourage his audience to fix the wrong. The tradition is not one of lending a deaf ear, but one of non engagement unless it’s with rules of deportment.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
I read somewhere that no one would listen so he went outside and started preaching to the fish, and everyone went outside to look at the lunatic who was preaching to the fish. Before long they were all listening to what he said in rapt attention.
Was that St. Anthony?
-Tim-
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Code:
That is a fair question. I think the best response is to refer you to the so-called “Ottaviani Intervention”. This letter was sent to Pupe Paul VI in 1969, when the Novus Ordo Missae was first being imposed… Here is the preamble.Here is a sample from the actual study…
Pope Paul never replied to this anguished letter. To this day, the Vatican has never responded, unless you can call Pope Benedict’s action in affirming that the Tridentine Rite was never abolished, can be thought of as a partial response.
J
JReducation
Guest
Yes, that was Anthony. The story has been embellished over the centuries claiming that the fish stood on their tails to hear him. But the truth is that he went to a village where some heretics had been preaching. Probably the Illuminati. They were a thorn in the side of the Franciscans. Br. Anthony arrived with a few brothers and started to preach. The crowd ignored him. Behind him was a pond, he turned away from the crowd and preached to the fish. People thought he was nuts. As they stopped laughing they started to hear what he was saying and eventually, they asked him to stay another day and preach more.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
A
allenthorn
Guest
I have been a suscriber, online and print, to The Remnant for at least 4 years. I “swam the Tiber” Easter Vigil, 2005.In June of 2011 went on pilgrimage with the Remnant walking from Paris to Chartes. Being 66 w/bad knees I did not make it all the way. During the following days of touring through France to various shrines I met people who were in love with the Church, and were not embarrassed to speak to me about it. This was the closest I have experienced to the excitement and joy of the early '70s in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. Michael Matt’s writings, and the writers of articles for The Remnant, have greatly deepened my understanding, and love, of the Church’s history and culture. Through the Remnant I have acquired the tradition for which I thirsted in my searching for the True Church.
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
The religious who were under orders not to engage in debate is not comparable to every Catholic’s simple duty to defend God’s honour especially when our own or neighbour’s good requires it.I certainly don’t claim to be infallible on this matter, nor is it one that calls for a precise science. Your point of view can certainly be considered. For me, I rather stick with what Franciscans have done for 800+ years. We have always avoided every conflict in the Church, by following Francis’ mandate never to engage in debate or arguments. “Just turn your back and leave,” was his command. It all began when Francis went to the Fourth Lateran Council and refused to participate in the debates. Bonaventure would later do the same when he was named a cardinal. He would refuse to engage in debates. The method has always been, make your point, but avoid arguments and debates.
This always reminds me of Anthony of Padua. Long before he was ordained a priest, Br. Anthony was known for being a biblical genius. When heretics would arrive in a town, people would send for Anthony to combat the heresy. Anthony was under orders never to engage in debates. So, he would wait until the heretic left and then went to the place and converted everyone back, without having to engage in a debate. He was such an excellent preacher and such a masterful scholar that whatever the heretics said, he could dismantle in five minutes. He got a reputation for being a threat to the heretics, but the truth was that he never debated them. He simply outsmarted them. He knew that it was useless to hear them out, because they were going to rant and not let him get a word in. He was also very fair. When he saw that there was a good reason for their anger, he would admit that too and encourage his audience to fix the wrong. The tradition is not one of lending a deaf ear, but one of non engagement unless it’s with rules of deportment.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
It would be morally wrong to suffer our neighbours to be hoodwinked by heretics and then take the risk of afterward trying to convert them back. I say risk because you cannot be certain they necessarily will convert back; whereas, by demonstrating the errors of the heretics and confounding them on the spot, you can be sure no one follows after them, at least no one who is of good-will.
Further, debate can be understood in many ways. It is one thing to assess, compile and come to a conclusion based on authority, for example; and it is another thing to argue over points or facts. Frequently with the Church the testimony of history and Tradition is overwhelming, such that debate is stirred up by the obstinate in a vain attempt to prevent what is evident and inevitable. This certainly damages fraternal concord. In such situations debating is pointless and one should simply hold fast to the clear testimony and teaching of the Church and not permit what is indisputable to have the appearance of being something that can be disputed. Those good Catholics who mistakenly combatted Papal Infallibility immediately withdrew their objections once it had been established that Papal Infallibility was indeed the doctrine and tradition of the Church. At that point they immediately ceased their protests and joined the orthodox party.
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
The concerns were officially addressed by the Vatican in the revised General Instruction (G.I.) that ultimately accompanied the Novus Ordo Missae (N.O.) of Paul VI. Some (who desired to see substantial changes to the actual rubrics of the N.O, and not only to the G.I.) claim that these changes failed to meet all of the concerns raised by the Intervention. Cardinal Ottaviani was quite old by this time, blind and I do not think he had much longer to live; nontheless, the majority of those with concerns (at least in the higher places) appear to have been satisfied with the alterations made in the G.I.
And the rest, as they say, is history.
J
JReducation
Guest
Wait a minute, we’re talking two different things here. Everyone is morally bound to defend God’s honor and the good of the neighbor, even those religious who are bound by obedience not to debate. Heck, even religious in monasteries who never leave are bound by this moral law.
Francis put the rule of argumentation into effect precisely because his time was very much like our own. People were being pulled in many different directions, most of them heretical. He was very wise. He understood the difference between a dialogue and an argument. He was always willing to talk with anyone who wanted to talk civilly. He was unwilling to talk with anyone, Catholic or heretic, if the person was belligerent. He would walk away.
He walked away for one good reason. He always said that the first vocation for every Christian was to be a saint. Hence the expression that is attributed to him, but was really said about him by Thomas of Celano, “He always preached, but only when necessary did he use words.”
That was the point that I was trying to make. We don’t have to argue every point. It’s not going to make us saints to argue every point.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
I could list a plethora of saints whom most today would describe as debators and arguers. The saint mentioned in my signature comes to mind; indeed, most of the Church Fathers do. I don’t believe Saint Francis meant in the least to detract from their authority or contradict their example in combatting and exposing error, wickedness and heresy.
I recall Saint Thomas also teaching that it can be good for practice (I assume against heretics) to debate the Faith so long as there is no danger of anyone being scandalized by it or otherwise losing their Faith. I suspect he had in mind the theological schools.
J
JReducation
Guest
This was the thing. He used the Fathers as his teachers and what he found was that they discussed, preached and even engaged in civilized debates. They never engaged in arguments. Arguments are pointless. The purpose of an argument is to win, not to evangelize. Arguments usually degrade into hostility, rage and even violence. This was not the behavior of the Fathers.
Augustine, who is one of the most eloquent apologists in Christian history was also known for being aristocratic in his manner. He never engaged in bar room brawls. Often, we want to defend the faith as if we were in such a brawl and we forget that part of preaching is our behavior under the circumstances. Augustine was a man who kept his wits about him and never descended into competition with his audience. He was a masterful debator, but not an argumentative one. He did not set out to conquer the world through mouthiness, but through love and reason. In arguments people get more mouthy, but less loving and less rational.
Do you see the difference that men like Francis, Dominic, Anthony and even Thomas Aquinas were trying to make? None of them were known for street brawls with heretics. They walked away from them. They were all known for their competence in the exposition of the faith, Dominic and Aquinas through reason, Anthony through scripture and Francis through humility.
The way that this is often explain here, it sounds as if we want Catholics to be aggressive and belligerent. Nothing can be further from the truth. Holiness is not achieved that way. A wonderful example of this would be Pope Benedict XVI and his recent visit to Cuba. I don’t know if you saw his interviews. He spoke very strongly on the immorality of Communism. He repeated the same message in his homilies while in Cuba. However, he was never aggressive, rude or arrogant. In fact, his exchange with Fidel Castro looked like a meeting between two old friends. They were even teasing each other about their age. He’s a wonderful example of how one can defend the faith and the faithful and still be a gentleman.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
- Status