Posted on 08/18/2004 7:43:12 AM PDT by Stubborn
The following list of words and phrases are typically used by modernist theologians and lay people, in reference to Catholic theology/practice/attitude/concepts. Most of them are inherently vague and for that very reason are used by the modernists -- it is not clear just what they mean or when their meaning applies.
(Excerpt) Read more at cathinsight.com ...
Are you Thorondir's kid?
Oh. Not surprising.
Might this quote I recently found also apply to the group you are mentioning?
Zeal without knowledge is always less useful and effective than informed zeal, and is very often dangerous!
-- St. Bernard of Clairvaux
**Are you comparing the accurate descriptor for a Catholic who does not accept the papacies of any post-Vatican II Pope to a gutter racial slur?**
Sure sounded that way to me.
I have been warned by more than a few good Freepers not to give out personal details, because a certain persistent person here uses them against folks and personally threatens them.
Buhbye.
Obsessed.
I should stay out of these kinds of discussions because I’m not a player ‘over there’ but I’ll butt in anyway.
Just imagine that while you were growing up, your parents ignored you. They ignored your birthday, your accomplishments, your disappointments, your achievements, in short, you were little more than another mouth to feed for them. Imagine further what kind of long range serious consequences this bitter treatment may very well have for you during the rest of your life. Imagine how it would affect your dealings with other people. Imagine how it would affect your attitude and your ability to develop meaningful relationships. Do you think such a person would grow up and be well adjusted despite this kind of abuse during his very important formative years? Can you imagine such a person?
I may be right or wrong about some of the above and, indeed, there are some jerks who were born jerks despite having very loving parents and a supportive family. Who knows why? Nevertheless, if these kinds of individuals can so readily manifest their disagreeableness to fellow Catholics on a lowly internet message board how in the world could they be any more agreeable to others in real life? Will they not find it difficult to become ‘well adjusted’ adults in real life as well?
The fact is that there are plenty of such people all over the place and just because they claim to be ‘Catholic’ is irrelevant. Anybody can claim that and it doesn’t make it ture. It’s not surprising that some of these people find solace and comfort in being an anonymous PITA on an internet message board. In a strange way, its there own way of “getting back” for “getting screwed.” In my opinion, that is their pathology not yours so don’t get caught up in what amounts to therapy for an idiot. Let them see and pay a professional for that. You’ve got other things to be concerned with.
Anyway, if some internet message board jerk starts to get to you, just imagine what my Sicilian grandfather’s monkey would do to the guy. That should bring a smile to your face.
You'll tolerate any kind of sociopathology on your website, BEST.
Zeal without knowledge is always less useful and effective than informed zeal, and is very often dangerous! -- St. Bernard of Clairvaux
If I were emboldened to modify the great saint's words slightly I would not say that knowledge was lacking. A legalistic understanding of matters is evident. But, zeal without charity, zeal without understanding, zeal without maturity, and zeal without heart and spirituality is indeed dangerous.
I wasn't really asking about personal references, but if you are referring to Sinkspur as being threatening I couldn't really imagine him being threatening. In what way? By "good freepers" do you mean people who despise his contradictory posts?
Sinkspur and I are at odds on many subjects and have debated them vehemently but I cannot recall him being personally threatening. Are you sure about that?
On the whole quite a lot better than possessed.
You said: "Most saints in heaven aren't canonized."
You have absolutely no way of knowing how many souls are in heaven, therefore the truth of this statement is unverifiable.
The point is that what is "positive" and what is "negative" is up to the determination of each and every single different person. It is subjective and very misleading. It is not a theological term.
Faith, hope and charity are. And even hope, which is not an overoptism, is based on God's promises to us, not some silly feeling that everything will turn out all right even if we do stupid things in life. They won't. It also entails an adequate and objective assemssment of what constitutes reality.
Finally, those who are perceived as being "positive" have no more supernatural merit than those perceived as "negative" as these ingrained characteristic traits are of natural origin for the most part, NOT supernatural.
Your anathemas are pretty good stuff. Did you come up with this on your own?
I can't imagine that you would say anything much worse about "anything-goes, liberal, heterodox, wacked-out, modernist Amchurchers" than I have said ... AGLHWOMAs have been the bane of my existence at various times in my life.
1) I said I was "batting .500" in mahoneyville, which was quite surprising to me. I expected worse. However, even in the worst cesspit dioceses, one can find pockets of decency. The record in other dioceses is far better. Which brings us to
2) I don't for a moment doubt that the familiar litany of horrors you recite actually happens in some places. I've seen and heard it first hand. I can also appreciate the horror of being stuck in such a parish. BTDT. But getting a job that requires "some travel" has shown me that while the horrors are far mor common than they should be (they shouldn't exist at all), they don't approach the near universality that traditionalist literature and discussion seem to suggest.
3) My standards are quite simple: I expect that the Mass shall be offered respectfully, reverently, correctly, and completely. I expect that the priest or deacon shall deliver a sermon which is orthodox and well prepared. I expect that the music shall offer praise or thanksgiving to God, and shall not expound heresy. I make no demands on aesthetics or artistic style, though if their tastes should be congruent with mine that's a bonus.
I'm unsure of your question. Feelings are unreliable. They are not always bad or wrong, but they are not rational. One can still be in the objective truth, but still have feelings, regardless of what they are.
Perfect appellation for SSPX.
Sagacious observation.
One could infer that from the tweaks/changes made by Pius XII and John XXIII--
A good guess would be that the Fathers envisioned exculpting some of the repetitiveness, using vernacular for the 'prayers at the foot...' and using vernacular for the reading/singing of the Epistle/Gospel at the altar, instead of once in Latin, then repeat in English from the pulpit.
Also a bit more vernacular in the 'after-Communion' portion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.