What reconciliation? SSPX Demotes Former French Superior

Envoy Encore ^ | 5/28/03 | Pete Vere, JCL

[TradicalRC]

Well, here's my two cents. While I disagree with the bishop's ideas regarding cause and effect, I do believe that both the androgyny and the abortion issue stem from the same cause: that is, the French revolutionary idea of egalite.

Women are slavishly convinced that men have it better and that they have to be like men. Ironically, the women who promote this ideology the most stridently, do not seem to be attracted to men.

It is easy to see the excesses of the bishop given the dominance of egalitarian philosophy in our current culture, what is far more difficult to discern is how much of a bad and ultimately anti-Christian culture we have come to accept. Not only accept, but promote.

I noticed that some of what St, Paul wrote gets bracketed in the missalettes, meaning that the priest or lector can skip those parts. Have we become so "progressive" that New Testament Scripture is making us uncomfortable? I think it shows how far we may have traveled down the wrong path. Our more "mainstream" ideas may be more palatable to us, but that is no guarentee of their inherent virtue.

[TradicalRC]

You might say that with Vatican II, the Catholic Church jumped the shark.

[TradicalRC]

Perhaps the letter of doctrine remains the same but dat ol' debil-the "spirit of Vatican II" has seen the advent of malleability of terms. Homosexuality is not a sin; it is merely objectively disordered. The Catechism acknowledges the governments right to capital punishment then the Catholic heirarchy turns around and denies that right.

So its one thing to say that doctrine has not changed, its another thing to claim that the meaning of the particular doctrines has not changed.

[St.Chuck]

But he will not do anything about abuses apparently except wring his hands in writing.

Good, at least we agree that his writings acknowlege what we all know to be serious conflicts with the faith.

...Sacred Hosts swigged down with beer by bikers...

Well, I will commend you for acquiring a new list of shocking scenes. The "usual" had become tedious. But I have to admit that the beer-swilling bikers comes across as cartoonish in a sterotypical way. Got a source for that one?

His behavior has certainly been that of a progressivist, not of a traditionalist, however you try to spin the truth. Nothing like his actions have ever occurred in the entire history of the Catholic Church.

Where do you get that stuff? What history do you read or are familiar with?. Are you on a strict diet of hagiographies along with the ivory tower theologians you read only to ridicule? Catholics have been disobeying the pope and living unChristian lives since Peter. Probably 80 % of the popes don't come close to comparing with JPII's avoidance of personal scandal. Probably 100% had to deal with every variety of heresy, including the donatism you wallow in. Your romanticized view of the past is incredible to behold. If you don't like that the pope does nothing, fine, you will be relieved to learn that he is following tradition.

[TradicalRC]

Not merely associating the French Revolution with feminism and abortion but drawing a direct line from the revolutionary idea of equality in the French Revolution being the father of the Russian Revolution as well as the feminist idea that the differences between men and women are purely of a social construction. The feminists sought to eradicate the differences between men and women by a) dressing like men and b) finding a way to be able to walk away from the consequences of their behavior, taking the worst men as their role models; if men can do the horizontal bop and walk away, then women should be able to as well.

Somehow, I think that when Christ railed against the hypocrites he meant that they should behave as well as they claimed to. Instead, the modernist answer to avoiding hypocrisy seems to be lowering the standard to fit the behavior.

[St.Chuck]

My whole argument has been that every effort has been made to reassure the faithful that nothing has changed--which is your position--while at the same time changing everything.

I'll buy that because I am very reassured by the Church. With daily uncertainty in business and personal relationships, I find tremendous comfort in the One Holy Roman Catholic Church. I adore it enormously. While you like to think everything has changed, I know that it is still Christ's Bride and my Mother and Teacher and nothing about that will ever change. The essential things never do.

Here again is Cardinal Ratzinger: "[We] can no longer imagine that human fault can wound God, and still less that it would require an expiation equal to that which constitutes the cross of Christ."

Interestingly enough, I have heard that preached from the pulpit. God is so omnipotent, awesome, so powerful, how could little creatures like us hurt him, cause Him offense. I wouldn't mind you explaining in depth what you find objectionable about that sentiment, but I reacted the same way you did. I immediately recognized the contradiction with the Act of Contrition. My thinking is that because of His Boundless Love we offend him. His love for us is every bit as stupendous as His eternity. I think that is about the time I started attending the indult regularly. At the time I didn't know that Cardinal Ratzinger, whom I respect, was responsible for that idea, but I have never read it in context so there may be more to it than what you quote and the even drippier version I heard. In fact, because you use it, I suspect it is more orthodox than I thought.

[TradicalRC]

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to use feminism to justify the behavior of men, actually the opposite. Showing that feminism sought to justify a woman's "right" to behave as caddishly as the worst of men.

As to your query regarding my gender, may I ask what difference it would make to you?

[TradicalRC]

I must confess it never occurred to me to ask what would happen if the romance went out of their marriage. And further, the question itself strikes me as odd.

I believe that we are in charge of our own souls (by the grace of God) but we are not islands unto ourselves. Modesty in clothing is a good thing all around (we agree on this) but we as a culture have grown indifferent towards the outward signs of our masculine and feminine differences. (Except of course, when one wants to see if another is seeing things from a man's or a woman's perspective.)

Androgyny is not good and it stems from a perverse obsession with equality; not merely de jure but de facto. Women seem to be more interested in dressing like men than the reverse. The cases where men indulge in cross-dressing is limited, shall we say, to a certain "lifestyle". One that is justifiably marginalized. (For the time being)

Women, on the other hand, have followed fashionably in the footsteps of their Sapphic sisters. I think that the cultural pressure to conform to the world is greater on women than men (for now) and it seems to have enjoyed remarkable success with them.

The French are the ones who midwifed this egalite, however, I prefer to remind them of another Francism: Viva La Difference.