homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Jesuits: Yea, Nay, or Eh? (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Jesuits: Yea, Nay, or Eh?
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I got chided, rightly, by Trisagion a few months ago for describing Pope Francis as a nonconformist. He does seem to be a challenger and a stirrer. That seems to be welcomed by some Catholics and uncomfortable to others.

Pope Francis is about as conforming as it gets! Seriously, if you randomly picked some Western RC bishop for an interview, chances are that you would get the same sort of answers from him. And if you widened that to randomly picking from Western RC priests, you would have to be very unlucky to hear anything else. Pope Francis probably goes on about poverty and economic justice slightly more than most Western clergy, but that has in my opinion more to do with being Argentinian than any special spirituality.

Even the "reform of the curia" stuff is totally post-Vatican II standard. It's all about "collegiality" and devolving power and responsibility onto the bishops and their national conferences. (And as far as that goes, the election of Pope Francis can be seen as a sly attempt to grab more power and get Rome off their backs by those one step down in the hierarchy.)

While hardly being the traditionalists' dream team, JPII and BXVI's were stemming the tide. These papacies were at least to some degree keeping the Spirit of Vatican II in check, by enforcing a modicum of RC continuity and sanity. The traditionalists are not worried that Pope Francis will be a revolutionary. They are worried that he will be part of the new normal. Pandora's box was opened by Vatican II, JPII and BXVI sat on the lid, but Pope Francis does not seem to be willing to do that. That's more how they see it. But I think that that's also not quite right.

Personally, I think Pope Francis is just a last gasp of the Spirit of Vatican II times. The church is always a few decades behind the world in these matters. And the former hippies have had to come to terms with Gens X, Y, Z or whatever. Anyway, things hardly turned out as imagined in the glory days of the 60s. And so it will be with the Church. Once the next half-time of Church decay in the West has passed, in 20-30 years or so, what is left of churchgoing RCs will make my cynicism about Pope Francis seem rather mild. I'm sure of that. It won't exactly be a traditionalist's dream either though, just like Gen alphabet soup did not return to the 50s. But they are considerably more conservative, and so will be the Church. Indeed, more so, due to the harsh selection bias of still giving a fuck about God...

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Perhaps Pope Francis is simply trying to respond to something like those forces as work within and without Catholicism today?

It doesn't really matter how he is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, to be honest. If I had the time and was really interested in the fate of the Church, I would talk to the 15-25 year olds that attend mass out of their own free will these days. There are a few. Some of them will be the "new new normal" in a few decades, and by virtue of the Church continuing her crash in slow motion, they will be quite dominant then.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411

 - Posted      Profile for Jay-Emm     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
The Jesuits have been the spearhead for everything that has gone wrong in the Church over the past century. They should have been suppressed again in the 1980s.

They've spearheaded covering up the sexual abuse of children? [Confused] Because that's without doubt the main problem with the RCC over the past century.
Pardon my ignorance but do we have any evidence for that?
I think you've missed Jade's point (playing on classic proof by contradiction).

CJ claimed "The Jesuit's spearheaded everything bad (probably meaning whatever the Catholic's ASB is)"
Jade1: The sexual abuse scandals are the worst thing.*
Jade2: Therefore if these two statements are true Jesuits led this, this is clearly absurd. Hence CJ's theorum is wrong**,

I may have missed your point (in which case I'll go into more detail on the *) or misunderstood her, but I think that's the case.


* for which we have several papal comments that enough occured to qualify as evidence of extremely damaging stuff happening.
**or Jade1 is (either it's no big deal [Ultra confused] , or the church has framed itself, or vernacular masses are really evil or there's something really secularly bad in the closet), [or the conclusion is actually right, but I don't think there's any evidence of Jesuits being particularly good or bad] I know what I suspect [to be clear that the Jesuit's are in the normalish range].

[ 05. October 2013, 20:13: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]

Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
The Jesuits have been the spearhead for everything that has gone wrong in the Church over the past century. They should have been suppressed again in the 1980s.

They've spearheaded covering up the sexual abuse of children? [Confused] Because that's without doubt the main problem with the RCC over the past century.
Pardon my ignorance but do we have any evidence for that?
I think you've missed Jade's point (playing on classic proof by contradiction).

CJ claimed "The Jesuit's spearheaded everything bad (probably meaning whatever the Catholic's ASB is)"
Jade1: The sexual abuse scandals are the worst thing.*
Jade2: Therefore if these two statements are true Jesuits led this, this is clearly absurd. Hence CJ's theorum is wrong**,

I may have missed your point (in which case I'll go into more detail on the *) or misunderstood her, but I think that's the case.


* for which we have several papal comments that enough occured to qualify as evidence of extremely damaging stuff happening.
**or Jade1 is (either it's no big deal [Ultra confused] , or the church has framed itself, or vernacular masses are really evil or there's something really secularly bad in the closet), [or the conclusion is actually right, but I don't think there's any evidence of Jesuits being particularly good or bad] I know what I suspect [to be clear that the Jesuit's are in the normalish range].

You're right, proof by contradiction was what I was trying to do. I suspect that non-Catholics liking many aspects of the Jesuit movement is proof enough for CJ that the Jesuits are bad news.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Pope Francis is about as conforming as it gets! Seriously, if you randomly picked some Western RC bishop for an interview, chances are that you would get the same sort of answers from him. And if you widened that to randomly picking from Western RC priests, you would have to be very unlucky to hear anything else. Pope Francis probably goes on about poverty and economic justice slightly more than most Western clergy, but that has in my opinion more to do with being Argentinian than any special spirituality.

The import of this appears to be your view that the views of these "randomly selected" western bishops and priests are wrong because they represent some kind of departure from what you believe to be right. Maybe you are wrong?
quote:

Even the "reform of the curia" stuff is totally post-Vatican II standard. It's all about "collegiality" and devolving power and responsibility onto the bishops and their national conferences. (And as far as that goes, the election of Pope Francis can be seen as a sly attempt to grab more power and get Rome off their backs by those one step down in the hierarchy.)

What is so bad about a more "collegiate" approach?
quote:

While hardly being the traditionalists' dream team, JPII and BXVI's were stemming the tide. These papacies were at least to some degree keeping the Spirit of Vatican II in check, by enforcing a modicum of RC continuity and sanity.

In what ways was Vatican II a denial of the need for continuity and in some sense insane? I suppose this, more than anything, is what I cannot get my head around.
quote:

The traditionalists are not worried that Pope Francis will be a revolutionary. They are worried that he will be part of the new normal. Pandora's box was opened by Vatican II, JPII and BXVI sat on the lid, but Pope Francis does not seem to be willing to do that. That's more how they see it. But I think that that's also not quite right.

Personally, I think Pope Francis is just a last gasp of the Spirit of Vatican II times. The church is always a few decades behind the world in these matters. And the former hippies have had to come to terms with Gens X, Y, Z or whatever. Anyway, things hardly turned out as imagined in the glory days of the 60s. And so it will be with the Church. Once the next half-time of Church decay in the West has passed, in 20-30 years or so, what is left of churchgoing RCs will make my cynicism about Pope Francis seem rather mild. I'm sure of that. It won't exactly be a traditionalist's dream either though, just like Gen alphabet soup did not return to the 50s. But they are considerably more conservative, and so will be the Church. Indeed, more so, due to the harsh selection bias of still giving a fuck about God...

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Perhaps Pope Francis is simply trying to respond to something like those forces as work within and without Catholicism today?

It doesn't really matter how he is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, to be honest. If I had the time and was really interested in the fate of the Church, I would talk to the 15-25 year olds that attend mass out of their own free will these days. There are a few. Some of them will be the "new new normal" in a few decades, and by virtue of the Church continuing her crash in slow motion, they will be quite dominant then.
You seem to be expressing yourself in more generally cynical terms, rather than just being cynical about Pope Francis. Of course that is your privilege but I don't see a lot of substantial argument there. "He's a wrong headed revisionist; the Catholic Church will rue the day when it comes to its senses and sees the damage revisionists cause".

Don't you think traditionalists cause damage as well? There is something quite deeply seated in Christian belief about recognising times and seasons and responding accordingly. I see no evidence that such responses should be implacable resistant to reform, to different approaches to sharing the faith once given.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So basically, reforms that were made 50 years ago by the top of the church hierarchy have finally reached the top of the church hierarchy?

Well, that's good then.

And Ingo, everything you've said in your posts simply shows that it IS the new normal. I suppose you're welcome to continue dreaming of the 1950s if you wish, but if you think the vast majority of bishops now fit into this template, it's fairly obvious that you're not going to get another Pope who will take you back to those glorious times.

Whatever you might think of generation X, etc, and however they're different from the people of the 60s, they are assuredly NOT like the previous generations either. The world changed. Wherever it's going, it's not going back to just relive the past.

[ 06. October 2013, 02:45: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CL:
[qb] The Jesuits have been the spearhead for everything that has gone wrong in the Church over the past century. They should have been suppressed again in the 1980s.

They've spearheaded covering up the sexual abuse of children? [Confused] Because that's without doubt the main problem with the RCC over the past century.
Pardon my ignorance but do we have any evidence for that?
I think you've missed Jade's point (playing on classic proof by contradiction).
Yes, sorry I read it again.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The import of this appears to be your view that the views of these "randomly selected" western bishops and priests are wrong because they represent some kind of departure from what you believe to be right. Maybe you are wrong?


For Catholics it is "here we have stood, we can do no other." One consequence of "opening up" in the wake of Vatican II has been that lay people have gained access to a constantly growing number of official sources detailing RC orthodoxy and orthopraxis. Unintentionally, I'm sure, the hierarchy thereby has made great strides forward in crowd-sourcing the Inquisition. The irony of that is rather Divine...

So if you think that I'm wrong, I say simply this: Show me. And I will say that to dear Pope Francis just as much as to anyone else. He beats me in learning and experience by a mile, no doubt, but I'm sure that my Google Fu is leaps and bounds better than his, and I'm no dummy. Of course, we do not wield the same power in the Church. But it is a mistake to think that he is free in the use of that power. He is very constrained. And I can track down these constraints and hold him to them. Easily. That's a new development.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
In what ways was Vatican II a denial of the need for continuity and in some sense insane? I suppose this, more than anything, is what I cannot get my head around.

Not Vatican II, though that was one hell of a sloppy council. The Spirit of Vatican II, which is a rather different beast.

As if on cue, today in the sermon the priest (not the parish priest, a visiting one) told us explicitly "When I was young, I was taught that faith consisted of affirming all these truths. That was all a hang-over from combating the Protestants: if you believe this you are Catholic, if not, Protestant. Now I know better. Faith is all just about trusting God." A paraphrase, but only for brevity... He spent quite some time contrasting the "bad old days" where one had to believe all these things and had to try being good according to the rules, with today, where we can accept that we are bad and just trust on God to pull us through.

I'm sure the guy means well. But sorry, if I wanted this stuff I would head to the next Anglican-Protestant joint. Their church building is nicer anyway, and nearer to my house. That's what I mean, you get this stuff all the time in the contemporary RCC. There is of course nothing in the Vatican II documents that would justify this, but it is the "Spirit of Vatican II" blowing hard...

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Of course that is your privilege but I don't see a lot of substantial argument there. "He's a wrong headed revisionist; the Catholic Church will rue the day when it comes to its senses and sees the damage revisionists cause".

If that's supposed to be a paraphrase of what I just said, then I won't bother with an answer. My argument may not have been substantial (making forecasts is always an act of foolery), but I made one. What you wrote is just assertion and evaluation.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Don't you think traditionalists cause damage as well? There is something quite deeply seated in Christian belief about recognising times and seasons and responding accordingly. I see no evidence that such responses should be implacable resistant to reform, to different approaches to sharing the faith once given.

The rad trads are like radiation therapy to a cancer patient. The harm they do is a very much needed one now; though if they succeed in their aims, then they will have to fade.

You've been around too long to make the mistakes that give the game away. So you've added that last half-sentence. It is largely the same with the RC wayward priests, bishops and popes, of course. They also know very well how to achieve plausible deniability. However, somebody wise once said that we should know people by their fruits. Once the pile of rotten fruit becomes large enough to be impossible to hide, then it is time. Until then, patience.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And Ingo, everything you've said in your posts simply shows that it IS the new normal. I suppose you're welcome to continue dreaming of the 1950s if you wish, but if you think the vast majority of bishops now fit into this template, it's fairly obvious that you're not going to get another Pope who will take you back to those glorious times.

I'm more dreaming of the 1250s myself. And it was once obvious that Arianism would become the orthodox teaching of the Church.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Whatever you might think of generation X, etc, and however they're different from the people of the 60s, they are assuredly NOT like the previous generations either. The world changed. Wherever it's going, it's not going back to just relive the past.

Which is what I said?!

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
QLib

Bad Example
# 43

 - Posted      Profile for QLib   Email QLib   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
As if on cue, today in the sermon the priest (not the parish priest, a visiting one) told us explicitly "When I was young, I was taught that faith consisted of affirming all these truths. That was all a hang-over from combating the Protestants: if you believe this you are Catholic, if not, Protestant. Now I know better. Faith is all just about trusting God." A paraphrase, but only for brevity...

Judging by the paraphrase, he's been reading Karen Armstrong. There's quite a weight of scholarship behind such ideas, you know.

--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.

Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But surely one cannot simply "trust God" without first have some theological definitions, or at least background, as to who God is? Otherwise the G*d word becomes, quite literally, meaningless.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And Ingo, everything you've said in your posts simply shows that it IS the new normal. I suppose you're welcome to continue dreaming of the 1950s if you wish, but if you think the vast majority of bishops now fit into this template, it's fairly obvious that you're not going to get another Pope who will take you back to those glorious times.

I'm more dreaming of the 1250s myself. And it was once obvious that Arianism would become the orthodox teaching of the Church.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Whatever you might think of generation X, etc, and however they're different from the people of the 60s, they are assuredly NOT like the previous generations either. The world changed. Wherever it's going, it's not going back to just relive the past.

Which is what I said?!

Oh nicely done. In the first bit you tell me I'm wrong for saying there's no going back, and in the second bit you get exasperated and tell me you've already said there's no going back.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

So if you think that I'm wrong, I say simply this: Show me. And I will say that to dear Pope Francis just as much as to anyone else.

I've been out of the loop for the past month, IngoB and also on a number of other occasions in the past four or five months, so there may well be stuff in other thread that have passed me by. The specific illustration I recall concerned his acttions re Maunday Thursday. That got a good enough airing and I don't think you won the debate, though as always you boxed a good draw. But your issues seemed much wider than that, I'm just not sure what they are. Other than "he's a Jesuit, I don't trust Jesuits because they trim". I guess I was looking for some more specific doctrinal/ecclesiological pointers. But maybe that's another thread - or a series of references to other threads which passed me by during my holidays. Happy to leave it at that or take it elsewhere.


quote:
Not Vatican II, though that was one hell of a sloppy council. The Spirit of Vatican II, which is a rather different beast.
Now that is rather slippery! This "Spirit" is surely about more than some kind of subjective tone, since if it concerns you it must be it's impact on the doctrine and teaching of the church. Maybe it's my Protestant ignorance at work, but I have as much difficulty with "Spirit of Vatican II" shorthand as "Vatican II" shorthand. It must be doing some quite specific harm to the work and witness of Catholicism to get you exercised. Otherwise tone is just tone. Where is the harm?

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Don't you think traditionalists cause damage as well? There is something quite deeply seated in Christian belief about recognising times and seasons and responding accordingly. I see no evidence that such responses should be implacable resistant to reform, to different approaches to sharing the faith once given.

The rad trads are like radiation therapy to a cancer patient. The harm they do is a very much needed one now; though if they succeed in their aims, then they will have to fade.

You've been around too long to make the mistakes that give the game away. So you've added that last half-sentence. It is largely the same with the RC wayward priests, bishops and popes, of course. They also know very well how to achieve plausible deniability. However, somebody wise once said that we should know people by their fruits. Once the pile of rotten fruit becomes large enough to be impossible to hide, then it is time. Until then, patience.

I guess that's about "faith once given". I wasn't meaning to be tricky, but I see where you are coming from. I suppose the difference between us relates to dynamic and ongoing changes in the understanding of how the "faith once given" applies today. How do those changes occur, how are they to be tested for genuineness?

Recognising the whole edifice of the Magisterium and the other records of Catholicism now available, what I think you look for in a Pope, any Pope, is a faithfulness to that remarkable codification of the "faith once given" as currently understood, interpreted, developed within Catholicism. So if you catch him "doing his sums wrong" by reference to that record, you are absolutely right to ask questions.

But maybe that is a matter of how he is explaining himself? Compared with you, my knowledge of the Magisterium is miniscule, but I would be surprised if it does not contain tensions; between principles and principles, between principles and practice. It is a dynamic record, subject to dynamic change.

Suppose this Pope is profoundly influenced by some principles more than others? And, for the sake of argument, suppose this is a work of the Spirit of God in his heart? He cannot ignore the other principles of course, but as I understand it he has the specific power to emphasise what he senses as most important at this time. Remembering the "vicar of Christ" responsibility, Jesus observed to religious leaders that in their detailed instructions they were paying insufficient attention to weightier matters (viz justice, mercy, faithfulness).

I think you should cut him some slack, allow for the possibility that there may be some dynamics of change here of which God himself approves. Personalising the ancient Gamaliel (not our recently returned Welsh Shipmate) from Acts 5.

"For if his purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop this man; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

After all, you foresee failure. But you don't know what the future will bring, you just fear what it will bring. Who knows - maybe the conclave really did hear from God? Maybe he is the man for these troubled times? I do not see how you be so sure that he is just another part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.

[ 07. October 2013, 11:42: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Deckie
Apprentice
# 17829

 - Posted      Profile for Deckie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've been reading through "The Jesuit Guide to (almost) Everything" slowly over the last few months.

Lots of really good stuff. Easy to read, totally non-judgemental, nothing at all so far which offend my moderately evangelical (small 'e') upbringing.

The picture he paints of Jesuit/Ignation spirituality and life seems very humble, Christ-centered, balanced, and inviting.

I really recommend the book. http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00395ZYWW

Dan

Posts: 4 | From: Carlisle | Registered: Sep 2013  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Deckie:
I've been reading through "The Jesuit Guide to (almost) Everything" slowly over the last few months.

Lots of really good stuff. Easy to read, totally non-judgemental, nothing at all so far which offend my moderately evangelical (small 'e') upbringing.

The picture he paints of Jesuit/Ignation spirituality and life seems very humble, Christ-centered, balanced, and inviting.

I really recommend the book. http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00395ZYWW

Dan

That sounds like a good read. Thanks!

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Judging by the paraphrase, he's been reading Karen Armstrong. There's quite a weight of scholarship behind such ideas, you know.

I would be hard pressed to name a field of research where I trust academic scholarship less to produce something resembling objective truth. But for what's it worth, I didn't mind his stress on "trusting God". I protest setting it up in opposition to "believing in truths". That's the classical "either...or" fail, Christianity is invariably "both...and".

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh nicely done. In the first bit you tell me I'm wrong for saying there's no going back, and in the second bit you get exasperated and tell me you've already said there's no going back.

Uh, no? Read for comprehension. In the first bit I tell you that the 1950s are hardly my ideal as far as faith, liturgy and theology are concerned, contrary to what you asserted. In the second bit I tell you that I've mentioned that Gen XYZ+ churchgoers will not return to the 1950 religion, even if they end up throwing their spiritual hippie parents under a bus. Because, well, I did (Paragraph starting with "Personally...").

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The specific illustration I recall concerned his acttions re Maunday Thursday. That got a good enough airing and I don't think you won the debate, though as always you boxed a good draw.

It took me a few moments to even remember what you are talking about. So yeah, things have moved on a bit. But to be honest, Pope Francis hasn't done much. We are all still mostly guessing what he might do based on some interviews.

FWIW, in his latest interview you can find Pope Francis either lying, or using "mental reservation" to trick his discussion partner into believing that he is saying one thing when he is really saying and thinking another, or stating something that is most definitely contrary to a bunch of very clear scripture as well as plenty of doctrinal material through the ages (including the Vatican II document "Ad Gentes", as it happens). And no, it's not a RC thing either, it's at the "Mere Christianity" level. I'll leave this one as exercise to the reader though....

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Now that is rather slippery! This "Spirit" is surely about more than some kind of subjective tone, since if it concerns you it must be it's impact on the doctrine and teaching of the church. Maybe it's my Protestant ignorance at work, but I have as much difficulty with "Spirit of Vatican II" shorthand as "Vatican II" shorthand. It must be doing some quite specific harm to the work and witness of Catholicism to get you exercised. Otherwise tone is just tone. Where is the harm?

You can read this document, starting with "The last event of this year on which I wish to reflect here..." It gives a reasonable definition of what is meant by that. And you will see, by virtue of this definition, that it is not so easy to say what that Spirit is about. If a standard is dropped, it is not necessarily clear what non-standard things people will come up with. Primarily we know that the standard has been dropped...

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But maybe that is a matter of how he is explaining himself? Compared with you, my knowledge of the Magisterium is miniscule, but I would be surprised if it does not contain tensions; between principles and principles, between principles and practice. It is a dynamic record, subject to dynamic change.

Oh, indeed. One of the key mistakes of the post-Vatican II Church is to overly stress the pastoral role of the bishops. Bishops are being assisted by many priests and deacons, and through these pastoral accommodation is constantly being stressed. To keep things in balance then, bishops must act primarily as the guardians of principle. It is actually their role to tell the priests and deacons: "OK, you can do this or that to help people out, but here we do draw a line." That is however an unpleasant role, it is much nicer to do the pastoral bits. And so the big problem we have is that everybody now wants to play pastor and nobody wants to be the spoil-sport guarding principle. The pope is a kind of super-bishop, if you like, and so he is supposed to be the super-guardian of principle. It is his role to tell the bishops "OK, you can do this or that to help people and their clergy out, but here we do draw a line." Unfortunately, I have seen very little indication so far that Pope Francis gets that.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
After all, you foresee failure. But you don't know what the future will bring, you just fear what it will bring. Who knows - maybe the conclave really did hear from God? Maybe he is the man for these troubled times? I do not see how you be so sure that he is just another part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.

I really think that you are not reading carefully what I'm writing here, and projecting all sorts of prejudices about traditional types onto me. As it happens, I don't think Pope Francis matters much one way or the other. This is not a fulcrum time, where one person can change history. This is a flow time, where what people do become little ornaments on the general course of history. I do not really fear the future either. Or rather, I do not fear the Church bits of it. To me, Church life is a duty imposed on me by Christ anyhow. My own job is pretty OK, as it happens, but I imagine my bitching about the Church hence is a lot like many people are bitching about their jobs. It matters, but not in a sort of existentialist mode. It's more a "the shit I have to put up with" mode.

Of course, things could get more serious if the RCC and the Vatican really start to fall apart. But that's a bridge I will cross when I get there.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
CL
Shipmate
# 16145

 - Posted      Profile for CL     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But surely one cannot simply "trust God" without first have some theological definitions, or at least background, as to who God is? Otherwise the G*d word becomes, quite literally, meaningless.

Exactly.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
FWIW, the RC Archbishop of Freiburg, Robert Zollitsch, unsurprisingly leads the way in exploring just how real all that papal talk about rules for people and by bishops is. They have now allowed communion for the divorced and remarried in that archdiocese. Contrary to the clear directions from Rome on the matter. Again. They tried that stunt before, and one Joseph Ratzinger, then head of the CDF, knocked them back in 1993. So we will see what Pope Francis does with this liberal Archbishop, head of the German Bishop's Conference, who once denied the sacrificial nature of Christ's death on German television.

Is that Spirit of Vatican II getting concrete enough for you yet, Barnabas62?

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lawrence
Ship's Grill Master
# 4913

 - Posted      Profile for Lawrence   Email Lawrence   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
FWIW, the RC Archbishop of Freiburg, Robert Zollitsch, unsurprisingly leads the way in exploring just how real all that papal talk about rules for people and by bishops is. They have now allowed communion for the divorced and remarried in that archdiocese. Contrary to the clear directions from Rome on the matter. Again. They tried that stunt before, and one Joseph Ratzinger, then head of the CDF, knocked them back in 1993. So we will see what Pope Francis does with this liberal Archbishop, head of the German Bishop's Conference, who once denied the sacrificial nature of Christ's death on German television.

Is that Spirit of Vatican II getting concrete enough for you yet, Barnabas62?

I think you are right to be concerned about the Jesuits. Most of the ones I know really don't think much of that rule.
Posts: 199 | From: Where once you could get a decent Brain Sandwich | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
IngoB

The Christmas letter by Pope Benedict did that nicely, thanks. Very helpful. I understand the continuity/discontinuity argument. It does seem to me that some continuities are ill-advised, but that's not carte blanche. The departure from an all male priesthood strikes me as a valid discontinuity for example. The real argument is over whether the church has the freedom to make such changes. Which is a DH here.

Perhaps you are right about my assumptions? I wasn't conscious of them. Your later remarks were helpful in clarifying where you're at.

[ 07. October 2013, 22:44: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh nicely done. In the first bit you tell me I'm wrong for saying there's no going back, and in the second bit you get exasperated and tell me you've already said there's no going back.

Uh, no? Read for comprehension. In the first bit I tell you that the 1950s are hardly my ideal as far as faith, liturgy and theology are concerned, contrary to what you asserted. In the second bit I tell you that I've mentioned that Gen XYZ+ churchgoers will not return to the 1950 religion, even if they end up throwing their spiritual hippie parents under a bus. Because, well, I did (Paragraph starting with "Personally...").

I might suggest the same thing to you, reading for comprehension...

'1950s' simply meant 'before Vatican II' anyway, but if you really think the church went off the wrong course about 7 centuries earlier one might wonder, what's the point of making a fuss about the spirit of Vatican II? If what you're pining for is something that isn't even within anyone's living memory, I genuinely don't see the point of having an extra problem with the particular slant of the most recent Pope. I doubt VERY much that the difference between pre- and post-Vatican II amounts to much difference at all if what you're comparing it to is 1250!

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But surely one cannot simply "trust God" without first have some theological definitions, or at least background, as to who God is? Otherwise the G*d word becomes, quite literally, meaningless.

Exactly.
You cannot 'define' God any more than one can define CL or Baptist Trainfan. God is not susceptible to definition. One can only attempt, sometimes more successfully and sometimes less, to describe him. God 'is' objectively, irrespective of any person's attempt to define him, irrespective indeed of whether we believe in him or not or whether our beliefs about him are right or wrong..

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107

 - Posted      Profile for Fuzzipeg   Author's homepage   Email Fuzzipeg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As IngoB would no doubt assume, I attend a Jesuit parish. What I like about it is the quality of music and liturgy....nothing Sr Sourire here....and the quality of the homilies which are never too long.
The Jesuit Institute is lay administered and the whole retreat programme is organised by laywomen.
The parish has support groups for Gays & Lesbians, women who have had abortions and is particularly concerned about violence against women which is a problem at the University.
Jesuits reflect the whole spectrum of society as far as their individual opinions are concerned...they are not uniform.
We are very lucky to have a Pope who reflects the spirituality and social outreach of the order to which he belongs.

Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
FWIW, the RC Archbishop of Freiburg, Robert Zollitsch, unsurprisingly leads the way in exploring just how real all that papal talk about rules for people and by bishops is. They have now allowed communion for the divorced and remarried in that archdiocese. Contrary to the clear directions from Rome on the matter. Again. They tried that stunt before, and one Joseph Ratzinger, then head of the CDF, knocked them back in 1993. So we will see what Pope Francis does with this liberal Archbishop, head of the German Bishop's Conference, who once denied the sacrificial nature of Christ's death on German television.

So far, the response seems to have been a slapdown.

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sober Preacher's Kid

Presbymethegationalist
# 12699

 - Posted      Profile for Sober Preacher's Kid   Email Sober Preacher's Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Not surprising. My own connection had a problem of some ministers playing fast and loose with the baptismal formula, and that got slapped down by the Judicial Committee.

In other news, bears are Catholic and the Pope excretes in woods....

--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.

Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Frankenstein
Shipmate
# 16198

 - Posted      Profile for Frankenstein   Email Frankenstein   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Jesuits, or the Society of Jesus, has a good write up on Wikipedia.
I have met quite a few in my time. They give retreats to schools and parishes.
They tend to be ‘independent thinkers’.
Hence people like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.
They like to shock by being controversial and questioning firmly held beliefs. (such as, could Christ’s trial have taken place on the night before a major Jewish Feast?)
They have been accused of following the Machiavellian Principle of “the end justifies the means”.

--------------------
It is better to travel in hope than to arrive?

Posts: 267 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools