Posted on 06/18/2014 7:20:48 PM PDT by ebb tide
I have doubts as to the veracity of such a letter.
Spreading your usual critical spirit?
...looking at the original poster’s profile, I see that he/she appears to be a tradition loving Catholic, which places him firmly in my own camp...is that the source of your asperity with him/her...?
I have doubts as to the veracity of such a letter.
...you believe it to be a fabrication by some traditionalist tribe..?
Would that be tradition (with a small-case t), Tradition with a capital T) or Tradition in the sense that he knows better than the appointed and anointed Hierarchy of the Church?
My problem is with the CONSTANT attempt of that poster to criticize Pope Francis.
I simply have doubts about it...and I definitely question how it is being used. I’m fairly sure that the prime instigator regarding the use of this letter ...is quite ancient.
;-o
Are you thinking it’s not real? I mean, even though you disagree with the contents, why would it be hard to believe that someone could/would write this?
Would that be tradition (with a small-case t), Tradition with a capital T)...
...ah, brings back my old RCIA classes, and the simplistic attempt to explain the Deposit of Faith...such silly courses, really...I recall inquiring about the TLM, and they looked at me as if I had sprouted a second neck...
or Tradition in the sense that he knows better than the appointed and anointed Hierarchy of the Church?...
...I’ve met numerous modern Catholics who told me that my criticism of Vat II was misplaced, and that I was mocking the divine providence of the Holy Spirit, and should learn what it means to humble and charitable...and then I sat back and watched as some sputtered and fumed in outrage when the appointed and anointed decided the ICEL Mass translation had to be improved, and they railed at the Credo’s ‘I’ replacing the phony inclusivity of ‘we’...I asked, ‘but what of charity to those that form our Faith?...
I’m fairly sure that the prime instigator regarding the use of this letter ...is quite ancient.
...a curious choice of word indeed...ancient...do you refer to the age of the ‘prime instigator’, in which case what would it matter how old he is, or is something else implied with such a cryptic term...?
...that phrase marked the writer as a wingnut...I read the rest of it with that in mind...
Certainly. However, that said, it remains, while all of her commentary reflects her personal views, much of it - not all - parallels the concerns, in my opinion, of what I suspect to be a good many faithful Catholics.
It does not follow that if someone is a wingnut or holds some prejudice with regard to a particular position, that all of what they say is wrong with regard to some other area of knowledge. There might be a little wingnut in everyone; 'so let he who is without wingnutism, cast the first stone.'
It does not follow that if someone is a wingnut or holds some prejudice with regard to a particular position, that all of what they say is wrong with regard to some other area of knowledge.
...well said...and having been said, I just defend my utterance by stating my aversion to the term ‘Zionist’, as it conjures a phony bogeyman that Hitler’s crowd would have understand all too well...
‘so let he who is without wingnutism, cast the first stone.
...as Holy Writ continues to be translated with increased laxity of refined expression, I’m sure that line has a chance to make it in there...
I will say, to he earlier poster’s point, that the point about Zionism doesn’t lead me to believe that this is written by a neo-Con.
Sorry, I couldn’t remember your user name...the above reference to “earlier poster” was you.
Those “such silly courses” are bringing many people soundly into or solidly back into the Church.
As for Vatican II, I was myself thrown into some spiritual disarray from poor leaders/teachers who misinterpreted much of that...and my own disobedient choices.
Thank our Good God and the faithful core who remained obedient to the Church for the assistance they gave me in understanding the truth of all that. As a result, I came home to the Church and all of her rich beauty...and am now seeing and helping others do the same.
...do you refer to the age of the ‘prime instigator’...
_________________________
Yes.
Those “such silly courses” are bringing many people soundly into or solidly back into the Church.
...a matter of opinion, surely...I use the term ‘silly’ because the organizers seemed obsessed with not bringing in anything which might ‘confuse’ the catechumenate...regardless of the fact that they were, all of them, adults fully capable of understanding and developing rational questioning without tumbling into ‘a confused apoplexy’...
...I may have given short shrift to charity with the term ‘silly’...I’ll thus change it to ‘not particularly theologically enlightening’...
As a result, I came home to the Church and all of her rich beauty
...your return is all well and good...and your joy at it is good testimony...but I too relish the Church and her beauty, only to see every week at Mass parishioners trooping in dressed in tank tops and shorts and passing by the Tabernacle with no hint of reverence...and slouching up to receive the Spotless Victim in the manner popularized by dissident 1960’s prelates (and a spectacular failure of the RCIA teachers to explain the full story behind Communion in the hand)...then what price do we assign to lost sacrality...?
By the way, most Jews are not as self flattering as you are.
I have no idea what any of that means. I don't even know what you're responding to.
I was defending Bible Belt Fundamentalists from the "Zionist conspiracy" nut jobs. I'm sorry that you consider my effort a failure.
What could you possibly tell us?
Repent and believe for the Kingdom of God is at hand.
Which "kingdom" is that? The completely non-literal, metaphorical one that has existed for two thousand years, or the literal one that will arise when the Bourbons are restored to France?
Seeing as how your Church won't admit anyone who doesn't believe in evolution makes me wonder just what you want Fundamentalist chrstians to do. You don't seem to want them as Catholics. Do you want them to all die off and disappear, as the Jews were apparently supposed to do?
So does this mean the Soviet Bloc's solid hostility to Israel and Zionism from the early Fifties onward made them good people? Or perhaps they were just "pretending" to be hostile because the Israelis ordered them to?
I have no idea what you’re asking/implying about my comment. If you go to the link for the OP you will read that this was written by a neo-con (aka “conservative”) Catholic. I don’t think a neo-con would mention Zionism or Freemasonry. That is more likely a comment from a Traditional Catholic (although not all trads would comment like this either).
Oh come on now. Enough with this. Even I would never say that the Vatican II Church believes this.
Please just stop.
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.