This is a comment from “5” for the post below this. It is good!
5 has left a new comment on your post "INTERESTING OBSERVATIONS":
If nothing else, this article reinforces what history teaches us about "reformers" who instigate sweeping changes: They often resort to tactics that would appear to contradict their very goals.
If we take the word "reformer" and attempt to neutralize it from any stigma, just making changes often means confronting structures that are so firmly in place that the reformer is forced into a confrontational stance, often with institutions or cultural norms that require a "wrecking ball" to so much as move. Peter the Great could only liberalize Russia by executing thousands of non-cooperatives and using dictatorial power. Martin Luther King Jr. could only get white Americans to care about civil rights by suffering the abuse of a corrupted justice system and eloquently proclaiming his case to anyone who would listen. Napoleon attempted to impose Enlightenment values on Europe by becoming the very thing the French Revolution purported to denounce: A despotical monarch. Reformers are not necessarily bad men or good men, but we seldom meet any who are great men, human nature being what it is. Most often they find themselves trapped by forces that resist any good they desire to bring or seduced by the power they sought to cleanse for us.
So what of Francis? I still say he is a symptom. Pope John wanted to "open the windows" of the Church to let in some "fresh air", but as time moves forward it increasingly appears that he unlocked the gates of the fortress of faith and let the enemy forces come in and do as they pleased. The "reformers" of Vatican II were disobedient bishops who discarded John's schemata for his council and "crashed the gates" of the institutional process with their impatience and demands. We've had over 50 years now of a Church struggling to find her identity and Francis seems to be just one more pontiff determined that he is going to shape it.
The problem is, the Church's identity has already been shaped and determined by nearly 2 millennia of pontiffs and saints and the sheer arrogance of one or two generations believing they have a mandate to upend what Christ established and others paid to preserve with their blood is reflected in the utter failure and tailspin nature of the post conciliar Catholics who cannot make peace.
I think they are, for the most part, looking in the wrong direction for the answers. Satan has a great talent for confusion, distraction and misdirection. We have a great talent for forgetting how vulnerable we are.
Here's a pretty good statement I saw concerning alleged restrictions on Summorum Pontificum:
"Among other things, he asks the question on most lips: “No matter what we guess the impact might be, the question remains: Why would Pope Francis do this? If a CEO decided to shut down the fastest-growing division in his company, it would be a head-scratcher for sure. So why would Pope Francis look to limit the reach of what is, in terms of growth, the most successful movement in the Church today?”
We all know the answer, Pierre.
Had to look up your illustration for the post, the Mendez Foundation markets prepackaged social programs to schools. Your tax dollars at work. Not much difference being the assorted purveyors of youth programs to churches. Your collection dollars at work.
I still maintain Bergoglio was seen as a malleable hick by the modernist faction in the Church, that faction put him forward as he was essentially unknown outside the Central and South American circles, whom the modernist faction knew would vote for a Latino en bloc. He was marketed to the rest as an outsider who could help clean up the shady dealings in the Vatican.
It turns out he has a history of instability, and has not been as predictble as the modernists had hoped, and they have their hands full in trying to steer him.
Frankly, I believe the modernist assessment of his intellect, him essentially a populist political animal of very shallow understanding of theology, spirituality, administration, and the horrors he allowed to exist in his own home diocese and his network of those whom protected him and him protecting them, whom he later promoted as pontiff, only confirms that judgement.
The very people who needed the boot from the Vatican immediately cozied up to Bergoglio and ran rampant, his "reforms" consisting of listening to the exact wrong people, and instead giving a ruthless and vindictive boot to any who dared say "hey, Boss, wait a minute."
It seems one can be of two camps in the Vatican just now, as seen by the papacy....a lap dog or an enemy, and he admits no middle ground.
History will not judge him a reformer, but only as an unstable man out of his league and a very bad pope due to that incompetence and lack of stability.
And the longer he stays, the worse he will get, guaranteed.
Pierre, that is a quote of Phil Lawler. I am a fan of the Latin Mass, but am not convinced folk opining along the lines of Lawler are correct at all.
Father McD likely has never seen Latin Masses as the "fastest growing" and neither have I.
It seems mainly only drawing from established Catholic ranks those looking for a (hopefully) deeper spiritual experience, particularly among younger folk looking for meaning.
But this is not growth, but only parish swapping. It remains to be seen if the younger folk ARE finding that deeper experience and able to pass it on to their children. But, lacking the guidance to that deeper spiritial life, I do not see that happening.
Yes, I have been to packed Latin Masses, but packed mainly due to it located in a densely populated area where 1:1000 is enough to pack the church, but those are a minority whose minority always wrongly assumes it is likewise everywhere else, and this is the error I see in statements such as Lawlers.
Anonymous at 12: 08,
Whether it’s parish swapping or not, the EF communities appear to be the only areas of growth in the US Catholic Church today and the average age of the EF attendees is far younger than the OF crowd. When I attend the EF in my parish, celebrated by my 32 year old pastor, I am the oldest person there. More tellingly, the EF attendees actually believe what the Church teaches unlike the OF attendees. We will rebuild the Church with these folks not the OF ones, sad to say
Again, that is not growth, but only folk fleeing to somewhere they see as better/safer.
Which better MIGHT be the case, or might NOT, and entirely dependent upon how much of the spiritual riches and practices of Holy Church are being dispensed and practiced in any particular parish.
If they are only exchanging one rote form for another with only more rote, and thinking themselves holier for doing so, there will be no growth when the children see the emptiness and lack of real answers in their parent's lives.
Frankly I see a lot of that "my rite is better than your rite" in the traditionalists circles, and very little more evident holiness. I freely admit the traditional forms and practices are more CONDUCIVE to spiritual growth, but question as to how much of that is happening in real life, opposed to how much is only smug militancy.
Frankly, I see little sign in either camp, both are focused entirely on externals.
And so long as focus is on externals, ain't nobody savin' nuthin' on either side.
That is the absolute truth TLM parishes are ALL young and ALL believe in the tenants of what The Roman Church teaches! And yes the growth is there and will continue to grow, the thing is they may be small in numbers but they BELEIVE and that is exactly what Pope Benedict XVI said a number of years ago he would rather have a small Church that were believers than a large one believed in nothing.
Anonymous at 1:35 PM,
So when a young family that attends the EF has more children and raise them with the EF, that is not growth?
I do not see the smugness you see. I see people who are trying to live their Faith in a highly secular world against serious odds. With the OF crowd (although there are exceptions), I see just ennui and general indifference. Most are simply "cultural Catholics."
Intentional communities, be they charismatic, EF, home schooling or any of the myriad of new movements all produce more vocations because more highly motivated Catholics join these as they wish for a deeper Catholic life.
Prior to Vatican II, parishes did this for most Catholics. The unintended result of all the tampering with the Catholic Faith, her culture, her liturgy, her devotions was to weaken local parishes. Also, local parishes once were tight geographical locations and everyone knew everyone else not so much because of the Church but because the Church was in their neighborhood and they knew their neighbors well. Not so much today and that affects parishes too.
But back to intentional communities. These are much like Protestant churches of like minded people gathering for a specific religious purpose and not too big at that which enables them to know each other well and this becomes their social circle.
For all to tune in for this Friday the S.S.P.X. will be ordaining men to the Holy priesthood and diaconate at the St. Thomas Aquinas seminary! Deo Gratias details from Rorate.
Anon 2:01 - It's tenets, not tenants.
The "tenet" thing bothers me too, but let's try to be kind about this stuff. A lot of people have an "autofill" function and, face it, "tenet" is not the most commonly used word anymore.
What drives me crazy is hearing "I could care less" when what is meant is "I couldn't care less." I should probably shut up about that though, since most people here could care less about it.
I think it would be fair to include people who return to the Faith in EF parishes as a form of growth. And there is a sort of zealotry in the traditionalists; isn’t it odd we would denigrate that when it was a hallmark of preVII Catholics to fiercely defend their Faith?
One might argue (oh, here goes--I know what kind of sh_tstorm will follow my comments) that President Trump could only confront and reform the "manage the decline" mindset that has been running America (from both parties) by coming into the presidency as an outsider and rattling the entire establishment, including many in his own political party and the completely one-sided media establishment.. He did this by "unpresidential" decorum, using the media and social media in ways no other president ever dared, confronting every sacred cow in our fallen culture and, in the process, making a lot of enemies. One might say that his reform work is unfinished, as the reactions (knee jerk and endless) against him and the need to publicly vent hatred towards him remains unabated at this time. Sadly, the manage the decline establishment currently (legitimately or not) has a grip on political power.
I hope the establishment gets comfortable again.
Forgive my error on spelling "tenets" I shall endeavor not to make that mistake again for your sake. And yes by all means please watch the new priests of the S.S.P.X. this Friday live streaming on the S.S.P.X. website.
We are all tenants of Father McDonald's great Catholic web hang-out. Stop apologizing. Mistakes happen. Frankly, I could care less.
Anonymous at 6:32 PM,
Here is just another example of the utter moral and intellectual corruption of the so-called mainstream media. This is about their Big Lie about President Trump being a racist. Unfortunately for the Media there are those out there they actually do research, and guess, what President Biden is the real racist:
"Oh, but former President Trump, the man the fake news media, Democrats, Big Tech, academia, and Hollywood assured us was a demonic racist; how many times has he been caught uttering the N-word, or any racial slur? Zip, zero, nada, not once, not ever…
Literally, billions and billions of corporate media dollars and Democrat party dollars and dark money dollars have been spent, along with countless man-hours, looking for even one racist slur Trump’s uttered, just one that a man who’s been world-famous for four decades has uttered. They came up so empty all they could do was fabricate lies and hoaxes, like the “very fine people” hoax.
And you know these very same monsters performed the same scouring of everyone in Trump’s circle, most especially his sons Don Jr. and Eric, and also came up with nothing.
The N-word score thus far…
The Bidens: FIFTEEEEEEEN!
The Trumps: ZERO!
And no one needs to invent anything to prove Joe Biden’s a racist, a man who casually throws around the N-word. Check this out, and this, and this…"
Anonymous K will be furiously doing research to defend his abortion loving President
"Trump’s Call for Execution of Central Park 5 Resurfaces as He Touts Appeal Among Black Voters - POTUS’ claim that Blacks will vote for him and “NEVER” Joe Biden is met with scorn by those with a good memory."
"Donald Trump’s long history of racism, from the 1970s to 2020 -
Trump has repeatedly claimed he’s “the least racist person.” His history suggests otherwise."
"An Oral History of Trump’s Bigotry
His racism and intolerance have always been in evidence; only slowly did he begin to understand how to use them to his advantage."
"The Brookings Cafeteria podcast last week discussed the role President Trump’s racist rhetoric has played in encouraging violence in America. Predictably, some podcast listeners responded skeptically on Twitter, doubting the association between Trump and hateful behavior. It would be naïve to think that data will change many individuals’ minds on this topic, but nonetheless, there is substantial evidence that Trump has encouraged racism and benefitted politically from it."
Etc, etc, etc...
Hmm! Whatever happened to the Biblical principle, "Judge not and ye shall not be judged?"
Hmmm... Nothing happened to it, Fr. McDonald.
What DID happen was that someone who is not biblically and theologically inept realized that Matthew 7:1 is not injunction against judging others.
Try reading beyond Matthew 7:1 to include verses 2 thru 5. When you do you will discover that, mirabile dictu!, that the coherent scene is telling us HOW WE ARE TO JUDGE.
To begin to get a sense of what the Bible actually teaches about judging, you might also take a peek at Galations 6:1 (about judging your brother who has transgressed), Matthew 18:15-17 (about judging your brother who has sinned against you), or other similar passages.
In other words, do you homework and get back to us.
LOL. The Brookings Institute? Why not cite Pravda or Investia? Too bad they could find no examples of President Trump using the “n” word. Fyi, folks were upset when Trump admitted Blacks and Jews to his private clubs. Also you can find direct quotes of Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson praising Trump for all his efforts on behalf of Blacks. Of course that was before Trump switched to the Republican Party
I feared this might happen.
The main reason I brought up Trump as an example is not to praise or denigrate the man or spur another endless debate about how great or terrible he is--please do that somewhere else.
I was using him as another example of a "reformer". The US political establishment has for--not just decades, but generations--has entrenched itself as a corrupt institution that exists to preserve its own privileges and no longer serves the people who vote. Trump came in as an outsider, promising to change that. I won't even venture into whether he succeeded or not and I beg those who read this to show the same restraint, because his success or failure isn't the point. The point is, he has faced the most hellacious, entrenched, massively-contrived wall of hatred, rejection, vilification and denunciation that any world political leader has ever faced in MY lifetime. When the reaction--or dare I say, overreaction--hits this level and magnitude, at very least we can say with confidence that this man has struck a nerve. Whatever needs to be reformed was, at very least, touched by his attempt.
TJM - Your belief that a person must use the N word in order to be a racist is just precious. Its wrong, but precious nonetheless.
Anon at 11:42
Double LOL! Forget the quotes--you can find a Youtube Video of a special dinner given to honor Trump for his efforts to help the black community in NYC and all the above-mentioned are there praising him.
I'm not even sure Trump "switched" to the Republican party. There is some footage back from the 80's where he confesses he was a Republican.
No, all of the sanctimonious left turned on Trump because he dared to run against their sacred cow--uh, er...umm, their sacred, untouchable, entitled candidate, Hillary from the Clinton Crime Family. He dared to call out the hypocrisy he saw on both sides. He publicly criticized people in his own party. He didn't act like a career politician and he exposed them all for what they are--hucksters on our payroll, playing us all for suckers.
Anyone who does that will get the wrath of the globalist establishment in full force. There will be no forgiveness, no redemption. But then again, he offers no apologies.
Anon 12:35 - Trump was not opposed because he was a "reformer."
He was opposed because his ideas of "reform" were un-American, self-serving, and destructive, not because he attempted to undo what the entrenched system.
Stooge at 1:18 - If you think you were not played for a sucker by the ultimate grifter Trump and his grifter clan, you were not paying attention.
Well, I'd hoped for some restraint, but the compulsion to correct others and feel "righter" than everyone else appears to be too tempting for some of us.
Anon 9:59 - Believe me, you have experienced tons of restraint.
"Righter" has nothing to do with it.
Error should be corrected, don't you think? Or do you stand back and let your child dart out into the street between cars? I bet your compulsion to correct kicks in BIG time, with little or no restraint evidenced.
Facts, my controversy-fearing friend, are what it's about.
"He was opposed because his ideas of "reform" were un-American, self-serving, and destructive, not because he attempted to undo what the entrenched system.
"Stooge at 1:18 - If you think you were not played for a sucker by the ultimate grifter Trump and his grifter clan, you were not paying attention."
THOSE ARE FACTS?
And you have the clairvoyance to proclaim that someone who is trying to keep a conversation on point is "afraid" of controversy?
I am not worried about billionaires going into politics who lose money by the end of their terms.
I am worried about middle-class and upper middle-class people who spend years as politicians and retire or die as fabulously wealthy people.
Something is terribly wrong with this ongoing process and it happens in both parties.
Post a Comment