That quote is:
"Traditionalists are some of the worst modernists on the planet"
I would like to know if someone has a link that clarifies if indeed Fr Ripperger actually said that. I Googled it as such and could find no source (but I did not try very hard).
This is my first post to this forum and I am starting in an area that is crucial form me. The knowledge and the self-understanding that I myself am, indeed, a modernist in the sense of Paschendi (which I have read though it would not be unwise to focus on it more (and I also found these video talks quite good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP6RzO9My5I&t=28s
There are 13 or so of these videos that comprise a discussion between two individuals. (And I need to listen again, and think).
I think that understanding Our Modern Condition and our modern situation is exceedingly difficult, demanding and fraught. In the course of my own independent studies, over many years now, I see how far we as moderns have fallen, and I see what the consequences are (my life and upbringing in highly liberal and modern California is a perfect example of what I now must 'combat against' and 'reform'). My processes in all this (excuse the cliché term) have been very intense, very interesting, and yet I am a product of the Modernism that Pius X wrote of in Pascendi.
But what I mean is our entire culture, indeed the *structure of our perception* and in many ways our *perceptual metaphysics* are modernist in the sense Pius X warned.
How does one turn this around? I am thinking now of Richard Weaver's Ideas Have Consequences (a philosophical and metaphysical neo-Platonism that could tend to Catholicism).
Well, there you have it! I just blurted out some material that I literally struggle with every day. It is agonizing in an inner, spiritual sense, but it is not strictly *my own*. That is, this is a shared condition. It is where we are in so many senses. Perhaps not *you-singular* of course.
Note: I use *** as you see more or less as emphasis. I suppose I could underline. I also use ' ' in much the same way. Perhaps I should reform my punctuation! 😂
Thanks you for reading though and please tell me your thoughts. Vitally interested.
Quote from: Lyle Bright on October 11, 2020, 06:09:58 AM
"Traditionalists are some of the worst modernists on the planet"
I would like to know if someone has a link that clarifies if indeed Fr Ripperger actually said that.
Yes, Fr. Ripperger says this a lot in many of his videos. You would have to watch his videos, rather than trying to find the text through google.
I have watched most of his videos, and he presents a lot of good material when he sticks with his strong points of explaining what he has learned through his ministry of expelling demons, but he has a bee in his bonnet on the topic of "traditionalists," which is just his personal opinion, and I believe is misinformed.
Is he himself not a traditionalist (at least loosely speaking)? Without context, I'm not sure why he would hold such a view.
Quote from: Daniel on October 11, 2020, 10:12:53 AM
Is he himself not a traditionalist (at least loosely speaking)?
He was originally a priest with the Fraternity of St. Peter before he left in order to found his own order of exorcists.
Quote from: Daniel on October 11, 2020, 10:12:53 AM
Without context, I'm not sure why he would hold such a view.
To present his argument in its best light, he says that traditionalists reject rightful authority like the pope and bishops. Based on his experience with exorcisms, he is very big on authority. He has a lot of good things to say on the subject of authority in general, but I think his judgment on traditionalists is at a minimum too sweeping.
He rags on Millennials and dwarves and Trads. :cheeseheadbeer: He's checked out the forums, most likely cath-info and who cares?
Overall, he loves us and has a very impressive record of doing something about it. He fights demons and trains others in this ministry to effective spiritual warfare. I know I am parody material for traddy trads, scars and all. He can make fun of me all he likes!! I thank God for him.
Quote from: Lyle Bright on October 11, 2020, 06:09:58 AM
There are 13 or so of these videos that comprise a discussion between two individuals. (And I need to listen again, and think).
I thought the video you posted was excellent. If the rest of the series is of similar quality, then I should listen to all of them.
Quote from: Lyle Bright on October 11, 2020, 06:09:58 AM
I think that understanding Our Modern Condition and our modern situation is exceedingly difficult, demanding and fraught. In the course of my own independent studies, over many years now, I see how far we as moderns have fallen, and I see what the consequences are (my life and upbringing in highly liberal and modern California is a perfect example of what I now must 'combat against' and 'reform'). My processes in all this (excuse the cliché term) have been very intense, very interesting, and yet I am a product of the Modernism that Pius X wrote of in Pascendi.
But what I mean is our entire culture, indeed the *structure of our perception* and in many ways our *perceptual metaphysics* are modernist in the sense Pius X warned.
Exactly. When something has always surrounded us and we have known nothing else, we are not aware of it. We absorb its assumptions without any conscious examination.
Quote from: Lyle Bright on October 11, 2020, 06:09:58 AM
How does one turn this around? I am thinking now of Richard Weaver's Ideas Have Consequences (a philosophical and metaphysical neo-Platonism that could tend to Catholicism).
Well, there you have it! I just blurted out some material that I literally struggle with every day. It is agonizing in an inner, spiritual sense, but it is not strictly *my own*. That is, this is a shared condition. It is where we are in so many senses. Perhaps not *you-singular* of course.
Note: I use *** as you see more or less as emphasis. I suppose I could underline. I also use ' ' in much the same way. Perhaps I should reform my punctuation! 😂
Thanks you for reading though and please tell me your thoughts. Vitally interested.
As for turning it around, be patient with yourself. It is a process and it requires time. You need to expose yourself to ideas that will contrast with your unconscious assumptions and so bring them to light. The podcast you posted and the encyclical it is based on are good examples, so you have already made a good start.
And you need to strengthen yourself spiritually in order to take on this intellectual work. If you have access to the traditional Mass and other Sacraments, these, along with prayer, would be the ideal source of strength.
It would also be helpful to have a community of like-minded people with whom you can discuss these matters. I hope that this forum could serve such a purpose for you.
Quote from: Maximilian on October 11, 2020, 09:57:15 AMYes, Fr. Ripperger says this a lot in many of his videos. You would have to watch his videos, rather than trying to find the text through google.
I have watched most of his videos, and he presents a lot of good material when he sticks with his strong points of explaining what he has learned through his ministry of expelling demons, but he has a bee in his bonnet on the topic of "traditionalists," which is just his personal opinion, and I believe is misinformed.
I too have watched many of his videos, and I do remember him saying some things about traditionalists. There is another Catholic site (Fish Eaters) that proposes a whole list of possible toxic traits of some traditionalists. It is likely you are aware of that site. But it is different to be a 'toxic trad' than to be essential infused with Modernism in the sense of Pius X.
It seems to me that if one could pay full attention to Pascendi and the meaning there, what it implies as necessary, that one would have little choice but to turn back to traditionalism. But this involves of course the assessment that 'something is amiss in the Church' at the present time. Myself, I began my researches in this area when I read The Destruction of the Christian Tradition by Rama Coomaraswami. That was my starting point to understand the ramifications of the metaphysical shifts of Vatican ll.
It is important that I point out that I am not -- yet -- a Catholic. I live in Colombia but I have not had an easy time at all finding people with whom to communicate. My entire philosophical background and cultural background in extremely different from that of Latin America. Note that there is a Latin Mass community in Bogotá. But I am not in Bogotá. I do not find the normal masses to be at all inspiring.
Catholic Traditionalism at this point in time, based on my reading and observation (a good amount of YouTube video-talks) hinges into many many different political and social concerns and conflicts. For example the advocacy of Church Militant points up the strangeness and dangerousness of the time we are in.
There are currents of confusion and misinformation that are startling.
Quote from: Jayne on October 11, 2020, 12:02:05 PMI thought the video you posted was excellent. If the rest of the series is of similar quality, then I should listen to all of them.
I thought so too and felt lucky to have found them. I would also benefit from listing to them again, and rereading Pascendi.
Quote from: Maximilian on October 11, 2020, 10:56:37 AMTo present his argument in its best light, he says that traditionalists reject rightful authority like the pope and bishops. Based on his experience with exorcisms, he is very big on authority. He has a lot of good things to say on the subject of authority in general, but I think his judgment on traditionalists is at a minimum too sweeping.
This confuses me a great deal (I mean the entire problem). If an authority becomes corrupt, one is not duty-bound to follow the directives of that authority. My understanding is that one is duty-bound to disobey -- that is if by following a command or order one would sin.
Well, I can make a reference to a very controversial book "The Sword of Christ" by Giles Corey (a pseudonym obviouly as Giles Corey is a figure of American history). I read a wide range of books because the focus of my interest is 'the Culture Wars'. "The Sword of Christ" is an intense and polemical work. And there are many Catholic traditionalists who are venturing into what I can only call *radical territories* of understanding of the meaning of the present.
It is really quite heavy and as I say difficult and fraught. I am vitally interested in any thoughts you-plural have.
Religion: Unconfirmed in any religion because of unusual upbringing, 'Spiritually' Catholic.
I think I signed up here some years back. I wonder if that is how I put it myself? (It shows to the left of my posts). But this is a good assessment! Though I have been really making efforts to read and understand the fundamentals of Catholic doctrine and fundamentally want to align myself to *it* -- I do not know where *it* is.
I have had the most bizarre experiences here with Catholic priests I approached for help who were so modernist and so opposed to traditional forms (one referred to the traditionalism of the traditional priests still in the Colombian Church as 'tradicionalismo enfermizo' -- sickly traditionalism -- with a gesture of such acute disdain that I was in shock for a number of days.
QuoteTo present his argument in its best light, he says that traditionalists reject rightful authority like the pope and bishops.
The irony is that a new bishop came to Tulsa and expelled his order, which was forced to relocate to Denver, I believe.
All in all Fr. Ripperger has done a lot of good. His talks are excellent and of course he's battling the demonic. I like the priest, but agree that that remark was too sweeping. We live in an age of diabolical disorientation. When a host of bishops and Pope St. John Paul II, The Great, Witchdoctor of the Church and Patron of Islam are covering up for pedophiles, or with a number of bishops, are themselves actual sodomite pedophiles, it's not modernism to question those in authority.
QuoteHow does one turn this around?
A word of caution: find the virtuous mean. Many a Trad swings too far the other way to compensate for the craziness. Understandable, but wrong.
QuoteI read a wide range of books because the focus of my interest is 'the Culture Wars'.
If you want to understand the cultural wars, watch the videos with Yuri Bezemenov. One video is where he is interviewed, and the other is where he gives a lecture. Start with the interview.
After that, watch videos on the Frankfurt School. Another book written by a former-leftist jew is entitled "Politics of Bad Faith" by David Horowitz. There is also "Witness" by Whitaker Chambers and "School of Darkness" by Bella Dodd.
Quote from: Lyle Bright on October 11, 2020, 01:10:35 PM
Quote from: Maximilian on October 11, 2020, 10:56:37 AMTo present his argument in its best light, he says that traditionalists reject rightful authority like the pope and bishops. Based on his experience with exorcisms, he is very big on authority. He has a lot of good things to say on the subject of authority in general, but I think his judgment on traditionalists is at a minimum too sweeping.
This confuses me a great deal (I mean the entire problem). If an authority becomes corrupt, one is not duty-bound to follow the directives of that authority. My understanding is that one is duty-bound to disobey -- that is if by following a command or order one would sin.
That does not sound quite right, but perhaps I am not understanding you correctly. Here is the section of the Summa on obedience: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3104.htm#article1 (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3104.htm#article1) Try reading this to see if it brings more clarity to the problem.
Quote from: Lyle Bright
Well, I can make a reference to a very controversial book "The Sword of Christ" by Giles Corey (a pseudonym obviouly as Giles Corey is a figure of American history). I read a wide range of books because the focus of my interest is 'the Culture Wars'. "The Sword of Christ" is an intense and polemical work. And there are many Catholic traditionalists who are venturing into what I can only call *radical territories* of understanding of the meaning of the present.
It is really quite heavy and as I say difficult and fraught. I am vitally interested in any thoughts you-plural have.
I have not read this book, but I found the preface online: https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2020/08/11/kevin-macdonalds-preface-to-giles-coreys-the-sword-of-christ/ (https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2020/08/11/kevin-macdonalds-preface-to-giles-coreys-the-sword-of-christ/) From this, I have the impression the book deals with themes similar to E. Michael Jones
Jewish Revolutionary Spirit. Are you familiar with this?
Unfortunately, it is often difficult to have a thoughtful discussion of these sorts of issues without it being derailed by accusations of anti-semitism. You have a better chance of finding a rational discussion on the topic here than most places. You might want to start a new thread for it, since it seems rather far from where you started with this one.
Quote from: james03 on October 11, 2020, 02:39:43 PMIf you want to understand the cultural wars, watch the videos with Yuri Bezemenov. One video is where he is interviewed, and the other is where he gives a lecture. Start with the interview.
Yes, I have of course watched his presentations as well as many other related ones on the topic.
I would say that he has a tremendous, and specific, insight, but I also think his view is reductionist. It implies a 'Russian Op'. But that is far too simple. There is of course a great deal more that could be said on this topic.
I have actually gone a bit further and have read Horkheimer and Adorno and to a lesser extent Antonio Gramsci.
'The Frankfurt School' -- and what this laden term actually means, is complex indeed.
Quote from: Jayne on October 11, 2020, 04:03:11 PMThat does not sound quite right, but perhaps I am not understanding you correctly. Here is the section of the Summa on obedience: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3104.htm#article1 (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3104.htm#article1) Try reading this to see if it brings more clarity to the problem.
There is a great deal there to be gone through. But let me say that I have read numerous theology-oriented thinkers who have indicated that a Catholic must think for him or herself when it comes to difficult moral questions. We are in an age when we are surrounded by extremely difficult moral questions. How this is decided I am not precisely sure.
QuoteI have not read this book, but I found the preface online: https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2020/08/11/kevin-macdonalds-preface-to-giles-coreys-the-sword-of-christ/ (https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2020/08/11/kevin-macdonalds-preface-to-giles-coreys-the-sword-of-christ/) From this, I have the impression the book deals with themes similar to E. Michael Jones Jewish Revolutionary Spirit. Are you familiar with this?
Unfortunately, it is often difficult to have a thoughtful discussion of these sorts of issues without it being derailed by accusations of anti-semitism. You have a better chance of finding a rational discussion on the topic here than most places. You might want to start a new thread for it, since it seems rather far from where you started with this one.
Yes, I have followed E Michael Jones pretty closely. And The Sword of Christ is from Kevin MacDonald's 'camp', if I may put it like this. This is very important material, but controversial to say the least.
You are very right about what you say. I am not sure if I would broach such a topic, myself. I mean, begin a thread. I do recommend that people do their own research.
I very much appreciate the depth of the comments I have received here. This means a great deal to me and it helps me.
Quote from: james03 on October 11, 2020, 02:28:34 PMWe live in an age of diabolical disorientation.
That is an excellent encapsulation. A quotable quote indeed . . .
Disorientation, the loss of the map, an internal condition of
desubicación.
Quote from: Lyle Bright on October 11, 2020, 04:25:20 PM
Quote from: Jayne on October 11, 2020, 04:03:11 PMThat does not sound quite right, but perhaps I am not understanding you correctly. Here is the section of the Summa on obedience: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3104.htm#article1 (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3104.htm#article1) Try reading this to see if it brings more clarity to the problem.
There is a great deal there to be gone through. But let me say that I have read numerous theology-oriented thinkers who have indicated that a Catholic must think for him or herself when it comes to difficult moral questions. We are in an age when we are surrounded by extremely difficult moral questions. How this is decided I am not precisely sure.
We start with moral principles that the Church teaches us. These are based on revelation and reason. These are not a matter of thinking for oneself. We accept them from the Church. But we need to apply them to the specific situations that we find ourselves in. This is where our thinking for ourselves comes in.
Reading St. Thomas is usually a very good way to learn about Catholic foundational principles. If you read through the linked section on obedience, it will give you the traditional Catholic understand of it.
Quote from: Daniel on October 11, 2020, 10:12:53 AM
Is he himself not a traditionalist (at least loosely speaking)? Without context, I'm not sure why he would hold such a view.
It's because, Daniel, he unjustly extrapolates from anecdotes to supposedly reliable data. This problem can be applied in many situations -- generalizing broadly from narrow data.
He claims he is widely traveled. ("I've seen this all over.") I commented on this some time on SD in the last several months. He is not sufficiently acquainted with a wide variety of trads from a wide variety of locations,
for a long enough period of time to accurately infer a consistent trend. As you know, he works as an exorcist in certain locations where he has permission to work in that capacity. His other main role is to lead missions and conferences (mostly the latter). That's where almost all of his audio sermons come from: conferences. You can tell because he'll say what he's going to cover "in this portion of the conference," etc.
Stopping here and there for conferences and hearing a few confessions and being greeted after Mass by a few people with an agenda is not enough of a database. He would have needed to become well acquainted with most of the trads in most of those locations in order to draw any kind of conclusions as to "trads in general," or "most trads," let alone "all trads."
And I know he's either NEVER visited my region OR he visited some time ago and deliberately or recklessly distorted the experience with a few to statements about most or all. Because trads in my area do not fit the descriptions of any of his complaints.
Any. I know the trads in my community very, very well. We are definitely flawed, but I'd say about half of us really strive to grow in virtue, though we fall, of course. And that only means that I only know about half of them well; the other half seems to only come and go to Mass (which is why I don't know them). This latter group, however, does not conform to his caricature of trads. There seems to be exactly one person who has a habit of telling priests off and has an anger problem in that regard. (I've seen her do this publicly, often.) I don't think that's a high percentage. It means that this one person has a near 100% frequency of showing a problem with taking over authority. But I'm glad he's not an accountant, because that's a 100% rate for one person, not a 100% rate for an entire classification of people.
As to his other complaints -- such as, we're a bunch of modernists -- I see no evidence of that among my local group that I know quite well.
Trads -- or Catholics who like to think of themselves as trads -- can resort to making it up as they go along when they do not have reliable traditionalist priests to lead them and correct their erroneous impressions of what tradition is and is not. Usually, that leadership is best achieved from an apostolate which stresses formation of those priests, holiness of those priests, and consistent teaching of the faithful.
Even among these, I would not necessarily say that "modernism" is the big problem but that ignorance can be a significant problem. I've seen this on more than one discussion forum, but not in personal (IRL) encounters. That's why local leadership and local catechesis is so important, so people don't create their own "dogma" from a position of ignorance and emotion.
Quote from: Jayne on October 11, 2020, 04:48:35 PMIf you read through the linked section on obedience, it will give you the traditional Catholic understand of it.
While I have not studied that particular section -- it is a bit more demanding to really get it than reading it through quickly -- my point, or better said the point of some people I have read and listened to, is that if a Pope or a Bishop were to give an order that did not conform to proper and necessary theological doctrine, the Catholic person would be justified and in the right to disobey the order.
I think that the condensed and decided theological edicts or principles have been expressed in 'infallible' arguments (that is if I am using that unique word properly in this context). What has been decided, or what has been understood (in relation to infallible doctrine), cannot be negated or countermanded by any Church authority. And in a situation -- I cannot think of one right now and I don't need one to illustrate the point I believe is valid to make (conforms with theologically-defined Church doctrine) -- in a situation in which a given authority -- even the Pope -- were to countermand a decided theological principle, it would be the duty of a Catholic in good-standing to a) express dissent and b) disobey.
What I say here sounds correct to me. If it doesn't to you, or anyone else, I am genuinely interested to understand why.
I have read more or less precisely the argument that I am making, I think it was in Rama Coomaraswamy's book
The Destruction of the Christian Tradition.
So, for example, if the Christian (Catholic) tradition
is being destroyed, it is the duty of a Catholic to act to perceive why this is, and how it has come about, and to act against it through dissent, coherent argument, and possibly disobedience.
My understanding is that ten of thousands of concerned Catholics are indeed worried over the internal destruction. If so, and if it is happening, it is an internal affair. And that means a great deal. I mean, a great deal must be examined and thought through. This is what I have taken away from the emphatic arguments I have read and listened to.
I am dealing here in theory. I am not a confirmed Catholic. But I don't think I am out of place to attempt to reason this through.
Please tell me your thoughts on this.
Quote from: Miriam_M on October 11, 2020, 05:08:18 PM
Trads -- or Catholics who like to think of themselves as trads -- can resort to making it up as they go along when they do not have reliable traditionalist priests to lead them and correct their erroneous impressions of what tradition is and is not. Usually, that leadership is best achieved from an apostolate which stresses formation of those priests, holiness of those priests, and consistent teaching of the faithful.
I read your post with interest. I wonder if you would share a link, for example a YouTube video sermon, of a priest you understand too be a genuine and proper Trad.
Quote from: Lyle Bright on October 11, 2020, 05:55:54 PM
Quote from: Miriam_M on October 11, 2020, 05:08:18 PM
Trads -- or Catholics who like to think of themselves as trads -- can resort to making it up as they go along when they do not have reliable traditionalist priests to lead them and correct their erroneous impressions of what tradition is and is not. Usually, that leadership is best achieved from an apostolate which stresses formation of those priests, holiness of those priests, and consistent teaching of the faithful.
I read your post with interest. I wonder if you would share a link, for example a YouTube video sermon, of a priest you understand too be a genuine and proper Trad.
Sure. In a little bit I'll be glad to do that.
There are several articles that I've found enormously helpful in understanding the limits of obedience, and a superior's ability to command.
The first is this: https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2010-Brian-Novus-Disordo.htm
It argues that the 1917 Code of Canon Law was revolutionary. It swept away all that had come before it (be it custom, longstanding usage, natural law, reason), and made law to be purely the will of whatever sovereign Pope was in power at that time. The article suggests that such an idea of law is arrogant, and ultimately un-Catholic, because one sovereign's reason cannot possibly grasp the entirety of law.
Most trads don't understand how revolutionary the 1917 Code was, because its actual text was conservative. But its concept was revolutionary. The sweeping away of the Church's 'common law' in favor of a Code written by a committee, pre-figured the sweeping away of the Mass of all ages in favor of one written by a committee.
The second is this: https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2018/10/tyranny-and-sexual-abuse-in-catholic.html
It begins by asking how the human element of the Church has so miserably failed to punish child-abusing clerics, and then answers by discussing the way in which concept of obedience in the Church came to be broadened from the 16th Century onwards. It moved away from the legitimate command of the superior -- which has the Good of the community as its end -- to the will of the superior -- which is an end in itself. It's a subtle difference but enormously consequential. I don't remember whether it talks about spheres of authority as such, but it definitely provides a much better conceptual framework for delineating such spheres than the 'will-based' idea does.
The third is a more detailed version of the second, with more metaphysical underpinning:
Part 1: http://tradicat.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-catholic-church-and-rule-of-law.html
Part 2: http://tradicat.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-catholic-church-and-rule-of-law_28.html
These articles won't answer all those questions, but you'll find your thinking about them is greatly clarified. The despising of authority, especially the supernatural authority of the clergy, is dangerous and will lead to hell. But there is no need to be tyrannised and subservient. All human authority whatsoever, be it that of a manager at work or a Pope, is derived from God, and is therefore limited.
Quote from: Miriam_M on October 11, 2020, 05:08:18 PM
Quote from: Daniel on October 11, 2020, 10:12:53 AM
Is he himself not a traditionalist (at least loosely speaking)? Without context, I'm not sure why he would hold such a view.
It's because, Daniel, he unjustly extrapolates from anecdotes to supposedly reliable data. This problem can be applied in many situations -- generalizing broadly from narrow data.
He claims he is widely traveled. ("I've seen this all over.") I commented on this some time on SD in the last several months. He is not sufficiently acquainted with a wide variety of trads from a wide variety of locations, for a long enough period of time to accurately infer a consistent trend. As you know, he works as an exorcist in certain locations where he has permission to work in that capacity. His other main role is to lead missions and conferences (mostly the latter). That's where almost all of his audio sermons come from: conferences. You can tell because he'll say what he's going to cover "in this portion of the conference," etc.
Stopping here and there for conferences and hearing a few confessions and being greeted after Mass by a few people with an agenda is not enough of a database. He would have needed to become well acquainted with most of the trads in most of those locations in order to draw any kind of conclusions as to "trads in general," or "most trads," let alone "all trads."
And I know he's either NEVER visited my region OR he visited some time ago and deliberately or recklessly distorted the experience with a few to statements about most or all. Because trads in my area do not fit the descriptions of any of his complaints. Any. I know the trads in my community very, very well. We are definitely flawed, but I'd say about half of us really strive to grow in virtue, though we fall, of course. And that only means that I only know about half of them well; the other half seems to only come and go to Mass (which is why I don't know them). This latter group, however, does not conform to his caricature of trads. There seems to be exactly one person who has a habit of telling priests off and has an anger problem in that regard. (I've seen her do this publicly, often.) I don't think that's a high percentage. It means that this one person has a near 100% frequency of showing a problem with taking over authority. But I'm glad he's not an accountant, because that's a 100% rate for one person, not a 100% rate for an entire classification of people.
As to his other complaints -- such as, we're a bunch of modernists -- I see no evidence of that among my local group that I know quite well.
Trads -- or Catholics who like to think of themselves as trads -- can resort to making it up as they go along when they do not have reliable traditionalist priests to lead them and correct their erroneous impressions of what tradition is and is not. Usually, that leadership is best achieved from an apostolate which stresses formation of those priests, holiness of those priests, and consistent teaching of the faithful.
Even among these, I would not necessarily say that "modernism" is the big problem but that ignorance can be a significant problem. I've seen this on more than one discussion forum, but not in personal (IRL) encounters. That's why local leadership and local catechesis is so important, so people don't create their own "dogma" from a position of ignorance and emotion.
Interesting that he can't be trusted to provide true and accurate information in that matter. Yet people just lap up whatever he says about something far more susceptible to a twisting of the truth, namely exorcisms, demonology, and the occult. For example, I also
know that the Harry Potter books do not contain "real spells" as he claims, indeed, they don't even reflect any occult philosophy or working knowledge of occult ideas and practices. So he's being lazy in checking his sources, just stupidly repeating hearsay or the claims of untrustworthy individuals, or being deliberately dishonest in some way. Oh, and the names of characters are the names of exorcised demons, so he says qualified with an "I don't know if this is true or not, but a priest has told me ...". But a man who can't get this straight and who is dishonest or jumps to mistaken conclusions about communities of fellow Catholics, is trustworthy about tales of shapeshifting, levitations, and a woman burning her house down with an incantation from Harry Potter.
Quote from: The Theosist on October 12, 2020, 12:07:10 AM
Interesting that he can't be trusted to provide true and accurate information in that matter. Yet people just lap up whatever he says about something far more susceptible to a twisting of the truth, namely exorcisms, demonology, and the occult. For example, I also know that the Harry Potter books do not contain "real spells" as he claims, indeed, they don't even reflect any occult philosophy or working knowledge of occult ideas and practices. So he's being lazy in checking his sources, just stupidly repeating hearsay or the claims of untrustworthy individuals, or being deliberately dishonest in some way. Oh, and the names of characters are the names of exorcised demons, so he says qualified with an "I don't know if this is true or not, but a priest has told me ...". But a man who can't get this straight and who is dishonest or jumps to mistaken conclusions about communities of fellow Catholics, is trustworthy about tales of shapeshifting, levitations, and a woman burning her house down with an incantation from Harry Potter.
Well, I am not in a position to evaluate thoroughly his skills or knowledge on demonology, but what I have heard from him about how demons operate corroborates Catholic dogma or certainly doesn't conflict with it. I have discussed his sermons with several trad priests from apostolates, and all of them have high regard for Fr R's knowledge/experience in this particular area. (By "area" I mean demonic possession, oppression, and obsession -- and just the way demons work in general, within us.)
I have not commented on wizardry, spells, etc., but again, other priests find him generally reliable. I would think that if they had strong disagreement with one or more aspects of his sermons, they would say that. Interestingly, one of them did object to something Fr. R said, but it had nothing to do with demonology!
I need to find my links for the OP now.
Quote from: Lyle Bright on October 11, 2020, 05:55:54 PM
Quote from: Miriam_M on October 11, 2020, 05:08:18 PM
Trads -- or Catholics who like to think of themselves as trads -- can resort to making it up as they go along when they do not have reliable traditionalist priests to lead them and correct their erroneous impressions of what tradition is and is not. Usually, that leadership is best achieved from an apostolate which stresses formation of those priests, holiness of those priests, and consistent teaching of the faithful.
I read your post with interest. I wonder if you would share a link, for example a YouTube video sermon, of a priest you understand too be a genuine and proper Trad.
any of the sermons here
https://www.institute-christ-king.org/wausau-sermons
from their website...
"Cook the truth in charity until it tastes sweet"—this famous quotation of St. Francis de Sales is the principle of our apostolic work. Fruitless discussions or, worse, uncharitable polemics never help to attract souls to the Lord. Again, St. Francis de Sales said, "One drop of honey attracts more bees than a barrel of vinegar."
Quote from: Skin of my Teeth on October 11, 2020, 06:26:53 PM
There are several articles that I've found enormously helpful in understanding the limits of obedience, and a superior's ability to command.
I have only just started to read the first article, but I think this goes right to the core. Quote from the first The Remnant article you referenced:
QuoteAnniversaries are a time for reflection. 2009 Marked the 40th anniversary of the revolutionary introduction of the Novus Ordo Missae by the command of Pope Paul VI, an act which has inflicted much damage, pain, scandal and confusion on the Church. As a reflection on this anniversary we will consider a topic which, to my knowledge, has rarely been considered as a contributing factor to this unprecedented liturgical novelty, the imposition on the Church of the Codex Juris Canonici of 1917.
My topic may surprise Traditionalists who tend to look back at the 1917 Code as a bastion of traditional discipline compared to the Code of 1983 promulgated by John Paul II. The project leading to the adoption of the 1917 Code was initiated by Pope Pius X and it was adopted by Benedict XV, two Popes whom Traditionalists generally look back on with admiration.
The prime mover behind the code, however, (the Bugnini of that time, one might say) was Cardinal Gasparri, a protégé of the known freemason Cardinal Rompollo. If the Novus Ordo Missae was, as Bugnini gloated, a conquest of the liturgical life of the Church, the 1917 Code holds a similar position with respect to Canon Law. It was a victory of the Enlightenment Liberal view of law over the ancient legal Tradition of the Church.
I have to clarify that I have come to Catholicism by a strange route. And I needed to make a comment about the quote that Traditionally Rural Mom posted:
"Fruitless discussions or, worse, uncharitable polemics never help to attract souls to the Lord."
I am certain that there are many different approaches to reaching people and influencing them. If I had to say what means or method have influenced me
personally, it would definitely be through the sort of discourse that Michael Matt of The Remnant employs. This is polemics in the truer sense of the word! And I mention here the image, the notion, the symbol of 'the sword of Christ' or the sword of the Archangel Michael.
So what
I have needed in order even to get to the point where I now am is a sort of acute polemical focus . . . on myself, on the culture of my upbringing, in relation to the 'diabolical disorientation' that James03 mentioned. But I think that this is possibly because I am a man and what reaches me, and what moves and inspires me, is essentially in struggle and battle (if I can put it like this). Interiorly, in my own prayer, my attitude must be, perhaps I can say, more gentle or more sensitive.
But my understanding of our present is that we are really and truly engaged in metaphysical battles. It is a question of driving this awareness home.
I do not mean to deny the sense in that quote -- there is sense in it of course. It is very curious for me to have been made to understand this morning, reading the posts here, that my character is more that of an idea-warrior. And I am engaged in idea-war. The battle is interior and very very personal, yet it very definitely has an exterior element.
Quote from: Lyle Bright on October 12, 2020, 06:11:04 AM
Quote from: Skin of my Teeth on October 11, 2020, 06:26:53 PM
There are several articles that I've found enormously helpful in understanding the limits of obedience, and a superior's ability to command.
I have only just started to read the first article, but I think this goes right to the core. Quote from the first The Remnant article you referenced:
...
Those four articles are quite revealing. Especially the difference between St. Thomas' idea of obedience and the Jesuit idea of obedience.
Quote from: james03 on October 11, 2020, 02:28:34 PM
QuoteTo present his argument in its best light, he says that traditionalists reject rightful authority like the pope and bishops.
The irony is that a new bishop came to Tulsa and expelled his order, which was forced to relocate to Denver, I believe.
All in all Fr. Ripperger has done a lot of good. His talks are excellent and of course he's battling the demonic. I like the priest, but agree that that remark was too sweeping. We live in an age of diabolical disorientation. When a host of bishops and Pope St. John Paul II, The Great, Witchdoctor of the Church and Patron of Islam are covering up for pedophiles, or with a number of bishops, are themselves actual sodomite pedophiles, it's not modernism to question those in authority.
I thought he had been kicked out of his spot to Denver, also. But I recently heard on Jesus 911 by his trusted deliverance ministry helper, that they love him at FSSP. I think a lot of us in the TLM movement have had problems with authority, because of our strong wills, AND because we have been harmed by misuse of Roman Catholic authority.
Quote from: Lyle Bright on October 11, 2020, 06:09:58 AM
That quote is:
"Traditionalists are some of the worst modernists on the planet"
I would like to know if someone has a link that clarifies if indeed Fr Ripperger actually said that. I Googled it as such and could find no source (but I did not try very hard).
This is my first post to this forum and I am starting in an area that is crucial form me. The knowledge and the self-understanding that I myself am, indeed, a modernist in the sense of Paschendi (which I have read though it would not be unwise to focus on it more (and I also found these video talks quite good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP6RzO9My5I&t=28s
There are 13 or so of these videos that comprise a discussion between two individuals. (And I need to listen again, and think).
I think that understanding Our Modern Condition and our modern situation is exceedingly difficult, demanding and fraught. In the course of my own independent studies, over many years now, I see how far we as moderns have fallen, and I see what the consequences are (my life and upbringing in highly liberal and modern California is a perfect example of what I now must 'combat against' and 'reform'). My processes in all this (excuse the cliché term) have been very intense, very interesting, and yet I am a product of the Modernism that Pius X wrote of in Pascendi.
But what I mean is our entire culture, indeed the *structure of our perception* and in many ways our *perceptual metaphysics* are modernist in the sense Pius X warned.
How does one turn this around? I am thinking now of Richard Weaver's Ideas Have Consequences (a philosophical and metaphysical neo-Platonism that could tend to Catholicism).
Well, there you have it! I just blurted out some material that I literally struggle with every day. It is agonizing in an inner, spiritual sense, but it is not strictly *my own*. That is, this is a shared condition. It is where we are in so many senses. Perhaps not *you-singular* of course.
Note: I use *** as you see more or less as emphasis. I suppose I could underline. I also use ' ' in much the same way. Perhaps I should reform my punctuation! 😂
Thanks you for reading though and please tell me your thoughts. Vitally interested.
Link? You don't need a link. I heard him say it from the pulpit at St. Joan of Arc parish when he was pastor there.
I said to myself at the time, does he know where he is at?
Quote from: Elizabeth.2 on October 12, 2020, 11:57:09 AMI think a lot of us in the TLM movement have had problems with authority, because of our strong wills, AND because we have been harmed by misuse of Roman Catholic authority.
In one of the articles linked to above:
"This is the influence within the Church of a conception of authority as a form of tyranny, rather than as being based on and constituted by law. This essay will present the nature of this conception, describe how it came to be influential, and explore some of its more significant results."Such a curious problem and question. One absolutely requires a will, and the stronger of a will the better, to follow the commands of Christ and the teaching of the Church.
I suppose this is a 'Protestant' issue: that to make a moral choice requires an act of the will and a personal engagement. One who is compelled to act in some certain way, but whose will is not committed to it, is not really acting morally (or so the argument goes).
But the issue today seems to have become that the will in some has been aroused to oppose not the legitimate authority of an ecclesiastical figure, but that of evil and abuse.
And when traditionalists complain of corruption in the Church (Michael Matt is a good example) they do so because of a strong will, that is clear, but simultaneously because their will has been activated by a sense of higher justice and right and to remediate a grievous error and sin.
Quite a bit of difference to merely being rebellious against proper authority.
Yes, and this is why studying the Virtues is so helpful. The Four Cardinal Virtues by Josef Peiper is pure gold. I really had no idea what Prudence is at all.
Quote from: Elizabeth.2 on October 15, 2020, 05:16:28 AM
Yes, and this is why studying the Virtues is so helpful. The Four Cardinal Virtues by Josef Peiper is pure gold. I really had no idea what Prudence is at all.
I ordered each of those titles (I prefer to have the separate volumes as they were originally published in English). Thanks for the reference.
I'll have to share a few of the titles that have especially impressed and moved me. (I had never heard of Pieper).