Awful. I sense a lot of projection in the words of Pope Francis. For one who hates gossip, judgement, etc… he seems to have no issue with doing just that to these Christians who do indeed believe that the Resurrection WAS INDEED majestic and triumphant. Sad, sad, sad. When we point at anyone, there are three fingers pointing right back! These words are quite shameful, deeply so given they come from the Pope.
FrAApril 21, 2014
“Let the angelic choirs of heaven now rejoice; let the divine mysteries rejoice; and let the trumpet of salvation sound forth the victory of so great a King. Let the earth also rejoice, made radiant by such splendor; and, enlightened with the brightness of the eternal King, let it know that the darkness of the whole world is scattered.” — Opening lines from the _Exultet_ of Holy Saturday
MadeleineApril 21, 2014
Goodness me. I can hardly believe this can be happening. It just never ends. Has *anyone* read anything written prior to 1962?? Sometimes I wonder. This just seems surreal.
richApril 21, 2014
As seems to always be the case (and for some reason I missed this “homily” of his last year), after reading something that this man says I always feel confused as to what his point possibly could have been.
Regardless of the confusion his nonsensical way of speaking promotes, its obvious that this man has a true hatred for real Catholicism.
CodgitatorApril 21, 2014
Pitting the “glorious”, “doctrinal” Resurrection against the “real”, “historical” one. Typical Bultmannian demythologization. The Jesus Seminar would be proud. Much like with his duplicitous teaching on the “miracle” of the loaves that was “not a multiplication”. Sigh.
GanganelliApril 21, 2014
Christ is still King and that has nothing to do with triumphalist trads that Our Holy Father so rightly disdains.
kallistosApril 21, 2014
Thanks, Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, oh so sorry….of the Newchurch that Rahner and his cohorts past and present built. You did good and your reward will be great. So keep smiling, nothing to worry about.
A Catholic ThinkerApril 21, 2014
Ganganelli, why do you suppose our Holy Father is so obsessed with these “triumphalist trads”? How many do you think there are, all-told? Do you see any here?
A Catholic ThinkerApril 21, 2014
Ganganelli, I have – if you wouldn’t mind – another question or three for you: What, exactly, is a “triumphalist trad”?
–
Is it somehow wrong to feel that Christ Himself has triumphed in the Resurrection?
–
Is the portion of the Church He founded in Paradise not right called the Church Triumphant? Did the Church err in adopting this moniker?
–
What level of triumphalism is wrong to you? What is it – specifically – that the Holy Father so “rightly” disdains?
GanganelliApril 21, 2014
A Catholic Thinker,
–
I’ve been around the trad world a LONG time. While there are some fine traditionalists I think I know the type of trad that the Holy Father is speaking of. What are some of the hallmarks? An obsessive focus on medieval styles of dress like birettas, copes, tall mitres, cappa magna, etc. Almost a sports team mentality when it comes to non-catholics. Something like your protestant religion sucks like a Red Sox fan would say the Yankees suck. Elevating the sins of the flesh over all other sins. You wouldn’t believe the number of grotesquely obese trads I’ve seen criticize other traditional Catholics for the number of kids they have. Like they don’t realize that gluttony will land you in hell just as fast as contraception will as they are both mortal sins. A de facto denial of the importance of the corporal works of mercy. These attitudes are pervasive among radical traditionalists all over the world it is this attitude the Holy Father disdains. Nothing more and nothing less.
A Catholic ThinkerApril 21, 2014
“Elevating sins of the flesh”? You mean that category of sin that Our Lady of Fatima told us causes more souls to be lost than any other? That category that the greatest Doctor of the Church also reckoned was the undoing of more adult souls than those who were saved?
–
Fat trads. Hmm. I know a couple, but not many. I’m quite confident in saying that the general population of both traditionalist parishes my family has been a part of is well less fat than the American mean. That said – though I actually am susceptible to the personal weakness of tending to look down on fat people – for some people it really *is* a genetic or other health issue. That and the fact that those poor souls who were overfed as infants will find it quite difficult to ever become svelte – there are just too many fat cells.
–
Finally, and most importantly, if you think only *these* are the people the supreme pontiff has in mind with his near-constant degradation of those Catholics who simply liked the liturgy & the Church much better before the Revolution, you are – to leave my comments objective – very much mistaken.
GanganelliApril 21, 2014
Uh huh…put those fat trads in a concentration camp and see how much it matters that they were overfed as babies. Gluttony is a mortal sin. Like it or not.
A Catholic ThinkerApril 21, 2014
A few more comments from me. The “superficial trad” or “nasty trad” is a real phenomena. They exist. Just like disingenuous or superficial people of all types in all contexts exist! Though their web presence is not exactly trivial, in the real world, they are not thick on the ground.
–
And it is *not* such people or by no means *only* such people the pontiff is referring to with his insults, as his words themselves make quite clear. It takes nothing more than a love of truly reverent liturgy or – this is almost surreal – the desire for moral certainty in doctrine itself to arouse the contempt of this man.
–
Regarding those Bad Trads, allow me to quote Bishop Fellay of the Society of St. Pius X:
–
“The attitude of the faithful
–
First of all, they must keep the faith. This is the primary message, we can say, of Saint Paul; it was also the message for the times of persecution: be firm, state [in Latin], hold on, remain standing, stand firm in the faith. Keeping the faith cannot be merely theoretical. There is such a thing as what I would call “theoretical” faith: the faith of someone who is capable of reciting the Creed, he has learned his catechism, he knows it, he is capable of repeating it, and of course this sort of faith is the beginning; you have to have it, or else you do not have the faith. But this faith does not yet lead to heaven. This is what you have to understand. The faith that Scripture speaks about is the faith that is—to use the technical expression—informed by charity. Saint Paul was speaking about this relation between Faith and Charity when he said to the Corinthians: “If I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains,” (which is no small thing, since a faith that can move mountains is not something you see every day!) “and have not charity, I am nothing…. I am only a sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal….”
–
It is not enough to make great professions of faith; it is not enough to attack or condemn errors; many think that they have fulfilled their duty as Christians when they have done this, but that is an error. I am not saying that you should not do it; it is one part, but the faith that Saint Paul and Sacred Scripture speak about is informed faith, in other words, faith imbued with charity. Charity is what gives form to faith. Charity is the love of God and consequently the love of neighbor. Therefore it is about a faith that turns toward this neighbor who is certainly in error and reminds him of the truth, but in such a manner that, thanks to these reminders, the Christian will be able to sow the faith, reestablish someone in the truth, lead this soul toward the truth. Therefore it is not a bitter zeal; on the contrary it is a faith made warm by charity.
–
The duty of state
–
What the faithful must do is their duty in their state in life. To keep the faith, a faith properly imbued with charity, profoundly anchored in charity, which will enable them to avoid discouragement, bitter zeal and spite, and instead to experience joy, the Christian joy that consists of knowing that God loves us so much that He is ready to live with us, to live in us through grace. This sheds light on everything that happens, and gives a joy that makes us forget problems and puts them in their place—problems that certainly can be serious. But what are they in comparison with the Heaven that is won precisely through these trials? These trials are prepared, arranged by the Good Lord, not so as to make us fall but so as to make us win. God goes so far as to live in us, as Saint Paul says: “And I live, now not I: but Christ liveth in me!” That is so beautiful! The Christian is a tabernacle of the Holy Trinity, a temple of God, a living temple!”
Would that the Bishop of Rome could have the authentic Catholic sense and the spiritual clarity to speak so plainly and so truthfully.
GanganelliApril 21, 2014
More nonsense. Where has the Pope condemned the traditionalist that just wants a reverent liturgy or moral certainty in doctrine? I watched Easter Mass at the Vatican and the liturgy was very reverent. Can you name one doctrine of the Church that the Pope has changed? Of course you can’t.
–
The real issue here is that there is a significant number of people who are like the older brother in the prodigal son parable. They simply don’t like that the Pope isn’t spewing forth anathemas on all those dang libruls and other “sinners”. In my experience, many of these trads have a house full of kids and find themselves going crazy. When the Pope speaks of “sourpusses” I can think of at least 5 different men I know personally who fit the bill to a T. One woman remarked recently after the Kasper proposal was floated, “Does that mean I can get my tubal ligation now?” I judge nobody’s soul but I don’t see the love of Christ in these people like I see it in the Pope. They actually seem to like Our Lord’s “hard sayings” and prefer to ignore His injunction to forgive 70×7 times. There is a saying for these people…”misery loves company”.
Long-SkirtsApril 21, 2014
THE
KNEELERS
We are St. Joan,
Philomena, Campion
The Faith in its whole
Is what we do champion.
We are St. Margaret,
Pearl of York
Where the bowels of the Faith
They tried to torque.
We are Sir More,
That’s Thomas the Saint
Whose reputation
They could not taint.
We are vocations
Large families and kneeling
Adoring His presence
It’s not just a feeling.
We are descendents
Of Tradition and beggin’
To stop all the men
Who are turning us pagan!
We are the poor,
Uneducated ones
But in faith well-informed
The heretic shuns.
And when we are told,
“Don’t kneel anymore.”
Since we don’t hold Doctorates
We kneel and ADORE!!
(actually, my husband holds a Doctorate, but what do they know? 😉
CodgitatorApril 21, 2014
Ah, yes, because pigeonholing our brethren is okay if the pope does it, and affixing prefixes to our faith is only bad if we do it for ourselves.
CodgitatorApril 21, 2014
Meanwhile, of course, we’re supposed to believe that this pope is an equal opportunity offender–a truly catholic bouncer–yet one of his most zealous defenders himself admits that he’s not hurling condemnations of liberals and heretics. Odd how that works out.
MadeleineApril 21, 2014
I’m sorry, but “trad” or “non-trad” aside, I find it appalling that a Pope would make such hurtful comments about members of his own flock, regardless of what his personal preferences may be. There are ways to address *issues*, if one thinks there are some, without adding a put-down to it. It’s called being polite. I’m not talking about cutting turns of phrase, either. When one does these things and seems to find it humourous, there is a problem. Making fun of people is not an appropriate way to get a point across.
salvemurApril 22, 2014
I don’t hold a doctorate but I know people who do. When I mention the goings on of this pope, religously minded non-Catholics and athiests alike are shocked. Even they have a better sense of what is expected of a pope. It funny, but most Catholic think Frankie is just perfect – which means they must think little of Christ the King.
–
I believe, I KNOW according to Catholic Tradition, that the Ressurection was the most glorious moment, possibly apart from the Nativity of History and mankind. A mind that calls itself Catholic and sees the ressurection in the neo-mordernist gloom of ignorance is just that, ignorant. Pray, Frankie – God likes dispelling people of their ignorance.
salvemurApril 22, 2014
“And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose, And coming out of the tombs after his resurrection, came into the holy city, and appeared to many.” Nothing to see here people. move along, Frankie says relax.
Dumb_oxApril 22, 2014
With the pictures above in mind, I think it is interesting to note what Eugenio Scalfari remarked after receiving his famous letter from Francis last September.
In the letter, Francis had written among other things the following: “…Jesus is risen; not to bring the weight of his triumph to bear on those who have rejected him, but to show that the love of God is stronger than death, that the forgiveness of God is stronger than any sin and that it is worth giving one’s life to the end in order to bear witness to this immense gift.”
Four days later, Scalfari wrote this thought in La Repubblica: “Per questo continuo a pensare che il vero culmine del Cristianesimo non sia la resurrezione di Cristo, ma la crocifissione di Gesù, non la conferma dell’esistenza d’un aldilà ma l’esempio e l’incitamento all’amore del prossimo”.
Unless I am mistaken, Scalfari means that the highpoint of Christianity is not Christ’s Resurrection and life everlasting but the crucifixion of Jesus as an incitement to love of neighbor.
Does Francis think in retrospect that he might have had more success with Scalfari if he had tried the “solemn nonsense” of proselytism? Or is the conclusion of the 90-year-old Scalfari satisfactory to Francis?
S.ArmaticusApril 22, 2014
Neo-modernists take it on the chin again, this time in the physical sciences. This from the DT: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/10778507/Max-Tegmark-Its-goodbye-to-the-universe-hello-to-the-multiverse.html
—–
“Tegmark’s universe of gyrating numbers, of equations literally coming to life, is one of bizarre possibilities and incomprehensible scale. Perhaps his most shocking argument concerns the role of humans, and consciousness in all this. Far from being insignificant monkeys in an ordinary little planet, we may be, he says, the only things that give the universe its meaning.
Again using mathematics, he argues that ET probably does not exist, at least in the observable part of “our” universe. If it is just us, then this has profound implications Tegmark says: “All those galaxies only became beautiful 400 years ago when someone saw them for the first time. If we humans wipe ourselves out, then the entire universe becomes a huge waste of space.”
One day, he says, if we avoid destroying ourselves, humans will probably colonise the cosmos. And whether we do this will depend, in large part, on the choices we make – decisions about nuclear weapons, climate change and all the existential threats on the horizon. If he is right, we are the meaning of life, the universe and everything, and ours is the most significant century in nearly 14 billion years.”
—–
Imagine that, we are most likely not some neo-modernistic “insignificant monkeys on an ordinary little planet”.
—–
“If we humans wipe ourselves out, then the entire universe becomes a huge waste of space.”
——
Who would have thunk?
DeniseApril 22, 2014
Pope Francis said…”They just say ‘triumphalism,’ because they have such an inferiority complex.”
——
But the term ‘triumphalism’ is not a term that traditionalists use, but rather it is a term used by others to describe (or put down) traditional teachings of the Church. So Pope Francis, as is often the case, is not making sense here.
elizabethApril 22, 2014
Good Lord, he really said that?! Why am I surprised?
elizabethApril 22, 2014
Amen to that. Sad, sad, sad.
DeniseApril 22, 2014
I dunno, maybe the Pope really wanted to use the term ‘traditionalist,’ or ‘tradition,’ instead of ‘triumphalism,’ but then thought better of it.
I found a humorous article on a blog in the UK called Eccles is Saved. It’s called Renewal of Vows (modernist vows, that is).
Ganganelli, you are either disingenuous or extremely clueless.
–
I’m not going to feed the trollism here by doing your homework for you. If you want to know how, when, & where the pontiff has degraded traditionalists *in general*, you’ve come to the right place: Read the archives of Louie’s blog!
–
As for the fact that the pope hasn’t changed Catholic doctrine: well, duh! The Holy Spirit would never allow such a thing. The fact that the teachings of the New Orientation are very much un-official and non-binding is His protection at work, and the fact that you evidently think that traditionalists think the pontiff *has* changed doctrine, or ever could, demonstrates quite amply that you do not understand what it is you disparage.
–
I love the Lord’s hard sayings every bit as equally as I love His Mercy. Only a seriously flawed theological base could construct a false dichotomy between the two. “Oh Lord, I love Your laws…”
–
Congrats that you know bitter traditionalists. I, in fact, know none in the flesh, but have known more faithless, materially heretical, obstinately-sinful Novus Ordo Catholics than I could possibly remember.
Gwaredd ThomasJuly 14, 2015
Would our Blessed Lord have rejected the “fat trads” of His day. My guess is He would have been more concerned with the salvation of their souls. Your over use of the word “trad” is a bit derogatory. “Take the beam out of thine own eye…” Maybe you’re in the wrong group since you seem overly concerned about the state of ones physical appearance than the state of their souls. Your concentration camp illustration was way over the top. It just so happens that our SSPX priest is extremely over-weight, nevertheless, he is a very holy man. The one virtue you appear to be lacking my man is Charity and that my come back to haunt you.
Awful. I sense a lot of projection in the words of Pope Francis. For one who hates gossip, judgement, etc… he seems to have no issue with doing just that to these Christians who do indeed believe that the Resurrection WAS INDEED majestic and triumphant. Sad, sad, sad. When we point at anyone, there are three fingers pointing right back! These words are quite shameful, deeply so given they come from the Pope.
“Let the angelic choirs of heaven now rejoice; let the divine mysteries rejoice; and let the trumpet of salvation sound forth the victory of so great a King. Let the earth also rejoice, made radiant by such splendor; and, enlightened with the brightness of the eternal King, let it know that the darkness of the whole world is scattered.” — Opening lines from the _Exultet_ of Holy Saturday
Goodness me. I can hardly believe this can be happening. It just never ends. Has *anyone* read anything written prior to 1962?? Sometimes I wonder. This just seems surreal.
As seems to always be the case (and for some reason I missed this “homily” of his last year), after reading something that this man says I always feel confused as to what his point possibly could have been.
Regardless of the confusion his nonsensical way of speaking promotes, its obvious that this man has a true hatred for real Catholicism.
Pitting the “glorious”, “doctrinal” Resurrection against the “real”, “historical” one. Typical Bultmannian demythologization. The Jesus Seminar would be proud. Much like with his duplicitous teaching on the “miracle” of the loaves that was “not a multiplication”. Sigh.
Christ is still King and that has nothing to do with triumphalist trads that Our Holy Father so rightly disdains.
Thanks, Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, oh so sorry….of the Newchurch that Rahner and his cohorts past and present built. You did good and your reward will be great. So keep smiling, nothing to worry about.
Ganganelli, why do you suppose our Holy Father is so obsessed with these “triumphalist trads”? How many do you think there are, all-told? Do you see any here?
Ganganelli, I have – if you wouldn’t mind – another question or three for you: What, exactly, is a “triumphalist trad”?
–
Is it somehow wrong to feel that Christ Himself has triumphed in the Resurrection?
–
Is the portion of the Church He founded in Paradise not right called the Church Triumphant? Did the Church err in adopting this moniker?
–
What level of triumphalism is wrong to you? What is it – specifically – that the Holy Father so “rightly” disdains?
A Catholic Thinker,
–
I’ve been around the trad world a LONG time. While there are some fine traditionalists I think I know the type of trad that the Holy Father is speaking of. What are some of the hallmarks? An obsessive focus on medieval styles of dress like birettas, copes, tall mitres, cappa magna, etc. Almost a sports team mentality when it comes to non-catholics. Something like your protestant religion sucks like a Red Sox fan would say the Yankees suck. Elevating the sins of the flesh over all other sins. You wouldn’t believe the number of grotesquely obese trads I’ve seen criticize other traditional Catholics for the number of kids they have. Like they don’t realize that gluttony will land you in hell just as fast as contraception will as they are both mortal sins. A de facto denial of the importance of the corporal works of mercy. These attitudes are pervasive among radical traditionalists all over the world it is this attitude the Holy Father disdains. Nothing more and nothing less.
“Elevating sins of the flesh”? You mean that category of sin that Our Lady of Fatima told us causes more souls to be lost than any other? That category that the greatest Doctor of the Church also reckoned was the undoing of more adult souls than those who were saved?
–
Fat trads. Hmm. I know a couple, but not many. I’m quite confident in saying that the general population of both traditionalist parishes my family has been a part of is well less fat than the American mean. That said – though I actually am susceptible to the personal weakness of tending to look down on fat people – for some people it really *is* a genetic or other health issue. That and the fact that those poor souls who were overfed as infants will find it quite difficult to ever become svelte – there are just too many fat cells.
–
Finally, and most importantly, if you think only *these* are the people the supreme pontiff has in mind with his near-constant degradation of those Catholics who simply liked the liturgy & the Church much better before the Revolution, you are – to leave my comments objective – very much mistaken.
Uh huh…put those fat trads in a concentration camp and see how much it matters that they were overfed as babies. Gluttony is a mortal sin. Like it or not.
A few more comments from me. The “superficial trad” or “nasty trad” is a real phenomena. They exist. Just like disingenuous or superficial people of all types in all contexts exist! Though their web presence is not exactly trivial, in the real world, they are not thick on the ground.
–
And it is *not* such people or by no means *only* such people the pontiff is referring to with his insults, as his words themselves make quite clear. It takes nothing more than a love of truly reverent liturgy or – this is almost surreal – the desire for moral certainty in doctrine itself to arouse the contempt of this man.
–
Regarding those Bad Trads, allow me to quote Bishop Fellay of the Society of St. Pius X:
–
“The attitude of the faithful
–
First of all, they must keep the faith. This is the primary message, we can say, of Saint Paul; it was also the message for the times of persecution: be firm, state [in Latin], hold on, remain standing, stand firm in the faith. Keeping the faith cannot be merely theoretical. There is such a thing as what I would call “theoretical” faith: the faith of someone who is capable of reciting the Creed, he has learned his catechism, he knows it, he is capable of repeating it, and of course this sort of faith is the beginning; you have to have it, or else you do not have the faith. But this faith does not yet lead to heaven. This is what you have to understand. The faith that Scripture speaks about is the faith that is—to use the technical expression—informed by charity. Saint Paul was speaking about this relation between Faith and Charity when he said to the Corinthians: “If I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains,” (which is no small thing, since a faith that can move mountains is not something you see every day!) “and have not charity, I am nothing…. I am only a sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal….”
–
It is not enough to make great professions of faith; it is not enough to attack or condemn errors; many think that they have fulfilled their duty as Christians when they have done this, but that is an error. I am not saying that you should not do it; it is one part, but the faith that Saint Paul and Sacred Scripture speak about is informed faith, in other words, faith imbued with charity. Charity is what gives form to faith. Charity is the love of God and consequently the love of neighbor. Therefore it is about a faith that turns toward this neighbor who is certainly in error and reminds him of the truth, but in such a manner that, thanks to these reminders, the Christian will be able to sow the faith, reestablish someone in the truth, lead this soul toward the truth. Therefore it is not a bitter zeal; on the contrary it is a faith made warm by charity.
–
The duty of state
–
What the faithful must do is their duty in their state in life. To keep the faith, a faith properly imbued with charity, profoundly anchored in charity, which will enable them to avoid discouragement, bitter zeal and spite, and instead to experience joy, the Christian joy that consists of knowing that God loves us so much that He is ready to live with us, to live in us through grace. This sheds light on everything that happens, and gives a joy that makes us forget problems and puts them in their place—problems that certainly can be serious. But what are they in comparison with the Heaven that is won precisely through these trials? These trials are prepared, arranged by the Good Lord, not so as to make us fall but so as to make us win. God goes so far as to live in us, as Saint Paul says: “And I live, now not I: but Christ liveth in me!” That is so beautiful! The Christian is a tabernacle of the Holy Trinity, a temple of God, a living temple!”
Would that the Bishop of Rome could have the authentic Catholic sense and the spiritual clarity to speak so plainly and so truthfully.
More nonsense. Where has the Pope condemned the traditionalist that just wants a reverent liturgy or moral certainty in doctrine? I watched Easter Mass at the Vatican and the liturgy was very reverent. Can you name one doctrine of the Church that the Pope has changed? Of course you can’t.
–
The real issue here is that there is a significant number of people who are like the older brother in the prodigal son parable. They simply don’t like that the Pope isn’t spewing forth anathemas on all those dang libruls and other “sinners”. In my experience, many of these trads have a house full of kids and find themselves going crazy. When the Pope speaks of “sourpusses” I can think of at least 5 different men I know personally who fit the bill to a T. One woman remarked recently after the Kasper proposal was floated, “Does that mean I can get my tubal ligation now?” I judge nobody’s soul but I don’t see the love of Christ in these people like I see it in the Pope. They actually seem to like Our Lord’s “hard sayings” and prefer to ignore His injunction to forgive 70×7 times. There is a saying for these people…”misery loves company”.
THE
KNEELERS
We are St. Joan,
Philomena, Campion
The Faith in its whole
Is what we do champion.
We are St. Margaret,
Pearl of York
Where the bowels of the Faith
They tried to torque.
We are Sir More,
That’s Thomas the Saint
Whose reputation
They could not taint.
We are vocations
Large families and kneeling
Adoring His presence
It’s not just a feeling.
We are descendents
Of Tradition and beggin’
To stop all the men
Who are turning us pagan!
We are the poor,
Uneducated ones
But in faith well-informed
The heretic shuns.
And when we are told,
“Don’t kneel anymore.”
Since we don’t hold Doctorates
We kneel and ADORE!!
(actually, my husband holds a Doctorate, but what do they know? 😉
Ah, yes, because pigeonholing our brethren is okay if the pope does it, and affixing prefixes to our faith is only bad if we do it for ourselves.
Meanwhile, of course, we’re supposed to believe that this pope is an equal opportunity offender–a truly catholic bouncer–yet one of his most zealous defenders himself admits that he’s not hurling condemnations of liberals and heretics. Odd how that works out.
I’m sorry, but “trad” or “non-trad” aside, I find it appalling that a Pope would make such hurtful comments about members of his own flock, regardless of what his personal preferences may be. There are ways to address *issues*, if one thinks there are some, without adding a put-down to it. It’s called being polite. I’m not talking about cutting turns of phrase, either. When one does these things and seems to find it humourous, there is a problem. Making fun of people is not an appropriate way to get a point across.
I don’t hold a doctorate but I know people who do. When I mention the goings on of this pope, religously minded non-Catholics and athiests alike are shocked. Even they have a better sense of what is expected of a pope. It funny, but most Catholic think Frankie is just perfect – which means they must think little of Christ the King.
–
I believe, I KNOW according to Catholic Tradition, that the Ressurection was the most glorious moment, possibly apart from the Nativity of History and mankind. A mind that calls itself Catholic and sees the ressurection in the neo-mordernist gloom of ignorance is just that, ignorant. Pray, Frankie – God likes dispelling people of their ignorance.
“And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose, And coming out of the tombs after his resurrection, came into the holy city, and appeared to many.” Nothing to see here people. move along, Frankie says relax.
With the pictures above in mind, I think it is interesting to note what Eugenio Scalfari remarked after receiving his famous letter from Francis last September.
In the letter, Francis had written among other things the following:
“…Jesus is risen; not to bring the weight of his triumph to bear on those who have rejected him, but to show that the love of God is stronger than death, that the forgiveness of God is stronger than any sin and that it is worth giving one’s life to the end in order to bear witness to this immense gift.”
Four days later, Scalfari wrote this thought in La Repubblica:
“Per questo continuo a pensare che il vero culmine del Cristianesimo non sia la resurrezione di Cristo, ma la crocifissione di Gesù, non la conferma dell’esistenza d’un aldilà ma l’esempio e l’incitamento all’amore del prossimo”.
Unless I am mistaken, Scalfari means that the highpoint of Christianity is not Christ’s Resurrection and life everlasting but the crucifixion of Jesus as an incitement to love of neighbor.
Does Francis think in retrospect that he might have had more success with Scalfari if he had tried the “solemn nonsense” of proselytism? Or is the conclusion of the 90-year-old Scalfari satisfactory to Francis?
Neo-modernists take it on the chin again, this time in the physical sciences. This from the DT: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/10778507/Max-Tegmark-Its-goodbye-to-the-universe-hello-to-the-multiverse.html
—–
“Tegmark’s universe of gyrating numbers, of equations literally coming to life, is one of bizarre possibilities and incomprehensible scale. Perhaps his most shocking argument concerns the role of humans, and consciousness in all this. Far from being insignificant monkeys in an ordinary little planet, we may be, he says, the only things that give the universe its meaning.
Again using mathematics, he argues that ET probably does not exist, at least in the observable part of “our” universe. If it is just us, then this has profound implications Tegmark says: “All those galaxies only became beautiful 400 years ago when someone saw them for the first time. If we humans wipe ourselves out, then the entire universe becomes a huge waste of space.”
One day, he says, if we avoid destroying ourselves, humans will probably colonise the cosmos. And whether we do this will depend, in large part, on the choices we make – decisions about nuclear weapons, climate change and all the existential threats on the horizon. If he is right, we are the meaning of life, the universe and everything, and ours is the most significant century in nearly 14 billion years.”
—–
Imagine that, we are most likely not some neo-modernistic “insignificant monkeys on an ordinary little planet”.
—–
“If we humans wipe ourselves out, then the entire universe becomes a huge waste of space.”
——
Who would have thunk?
Pope Francis said…”They just say ‘triumphalism,’ because they have such an inferiority complex.”
——
But the term ‘triumphalism’ is not a term that traditionalists use, but rather it is a term used by others to describe (or put down) traditional teachings of the Church. So Pope Francis, as is often the case, is not making sense here.
Good Lord, he really said that?! Why am I surprised?
Amen to that. Sad, sad, sad.
I dunno, maybe the Pope really wanted to use the term ‘traditionalist,’ or ‘tradition,’ instead of ‘triumphalism,’ but then thought better of it.
I found a humorous article on a blog in the UK called Eccles is Saved. It’s called Renewal of Vows (modernist vows, that is).
http://ecclesandbosco.blogspot.com/2014/04/renewal-of-vows.html
Ganganelli, you are either disingenuous or extremely clueless.
–
I’m not going to feed the trollism here by doing your homework for you. If you want to know how, when, & where the pontiff has degraded traditionalists *in general*, you’ve come to the right place: Read the archives of Louie’s blog!
–
As for the fact that the pope hasn’t changed Catholic doctrine: well, duh! The Holy Spirit would never allow such a thing. The fact that the teachings of the New Orientation are very much un-official and non-binding is His protection at work, and the fact that you evidently think that traditionalists think the pontiff *has* changed doctrine, or ever could, demonstrates quite amply that you do not understand what it is you disparage.
–
I love the Lord’s hard sayings every bit as equally as I love His Mercy. Only a seriously flawed theological base could construct a false dichotomy between the two. “Oh Lord, I love Your laws…”
–
Congrats that you know bitter traditionalists. I, in fact, know none in the flesh, but have known more faithless, materially heretical, obstinately-sinful Novus Ordo Catholics than I could possibly remember.
Would our Blessed Lord have rejected the “fat trads” of His day. My guess is He would have been more concerned with the salvation of their souls. Your over use of the word “trad” is a bit derogatory. “Take the beam out of thine own eye…” Maybe you’re in the wrong group since you seem overly concerned about the state of ones physical appearance than the state of their souls. Your concentration camp illustration was way over the top. It just so happens that our SSPX priest is extremely over-weight, nevertheless, he is a very holy man. The one virtue you appear to be lacking my man is Charity and that my come back to haunt you.