Last movie you saw?

[Mono no aware]

Cría Cuervos (1976)

[Clare]

Inception

[Matto]

I have watched more movies in the last month than I normally do in a year but I have not watched any new ones. I fear watching new movies because I find most of them to be immoral. To me older movies are less offensive. And I also think the artistic quality of movies has gone down. Tonight I watched my favorite movie called Tokyo Story directed by Ozu. The director wrote the scripts of his movies with his co-writer while they were drinking sake together. While writing Tokyo Story they drank 43 bottles of sake. The movie is the story of two elderly grandparents from the country going to visit their children and grandchildren in Tokyo. I do not know much about the life of Ozu except that he lived with his mother and never married and died on his sixtieth birthday. I love his movies though.
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/embed/pCh4WRDVzyY[/yt]
I think this movie is safe to watch. If it offends you I don't think you should be watching any movies because most movies, especially modern ones, are more objectionable.

[Kaesekopf]

However priggish or scolding Jerome may've been, we have to admit that at least he founded his arguments on copious saints and popes.  Looking at the hostility and sarcasm in the responses to him, I get the impression that his opposition was so entrenched in their ways that even a silver-tongued Jerome oozing sweetness and light couldnt've done much to sway them.

Sure, but there's that line about cymbals and brass to keep in mind, too.

And, I can quote saints all day long, but that isn't necessarily a convincing route to take.

[Kaesekopf]

About rigorists usually being assholes, I would probably be considered a rigorist myself and I hope I am not an asshole. But I do not usually talk about some of the more extreme views I have because they are strange and not really appropriate to talk about publicly.

Now I am intrigued.

[Kaesekopf]

But consider it this way, because arguments among laypersons are mostly doomed.  If the Catholic Church miraculously returned to tradition tomorrow, and had a pope whose traditionalist bona fides would be unquestioned by 99% of the people on this forum, and if the Church set up a pontifical congregation to set the standards for modesty in dress and decency in entertainments, do you think everyone would receive those standards with docility if they were even half as strict as the Early Church Fathers?  Or would they "LOL," or take recourse to the notion that "well, it's pretty obvious that Jansenism lives on in traditional Catholicism"?

The problem with traditionalism (well, at least one problem) is that we all set ourselves up as the arbiter of Catholicism.  We read a few Internet articles, maybe a book or three, can parrot back some key phrases (salus animarum supemus lex esto!), and then start deciding so and so isn't Catholic enough, etc, etc.  It's a very real problem, and it's full sadness can be found (IMHO) in the "Resistance" (those booted from the SSPX or who abandoned the SSPX), for whom nothing is ever good enough. 

But, I imagine you would find the mass bulk of traditionalists (50-75%) follow along the standards, where a noisy minority would raise all hell, not unlike how liberals do nowadays.  (I daresay, to take a negative/pessimistic view, that the bulk don't care and are content to follow orders)

[red solo cup]

About rigorists usually being assholes, I would probably be considered a rigorist myself and I hope I am not an asshole. But I do not usually talk about some of the more extreme views I have because they are strange and not really appropriate to talk about publicly.

Now I am intrigued.

Ditto.

[LouisIX]

But consider it this way, because arguments among laypersons are mostly doomed.  If the Catholic Church miraculously returned to tradition tomorrow, and had a pope whose traditionalist bona fides would be unquestioned by 99% of the people on this forum, and if the Church set up a pontifical congregation to set the standards for modesty in dress and decency in entertainments, do you think everyone would receive those standards with docility if they were even half as strict as the Early Church Fathers?  Or would they "LOL," or take recourse to the notion that "well, it's pretty obvious that Jansenism lives on in traditional Catholicism"?

The problem with traditionalism (well, at least one problem) is that we all set ourselves up as the arbiter of Catholicism.  We read a few Internet articles, maybe a book or three, can parrot back some key phrases (salus animarum supemus lex esto!), and then start deciding so and so isn't Catholic enough, etc, etc.  It's a very real problem, and it's full sadness can be found (IMHO) in the "Resistance" (those booted from the SSPX or who abandoned the SSPX), for whom nothing is ever good enough. 

But, I imagine you would find the mass bulk of traditionalists (50-75%) follow along the standards, where a noisy minority would raise all hell, not unlike how liberals do nowadays.  (I daresay, to take a negative/pessimistic view, that the bulk don't care and are content to follow orders)

In my opinion, it's not even that most trads misunderstand an important concept when they read it online, but they miss how that concept relates to the whole. As such, nuanced and complex ideas get collapsed into monopolized caricatures.

[Matto]

Now I am intrigued.

Are you intrigued? I guess how I said that would make people interested. I will tell you one of my ideas that I think is strange but not some of the more extreme ones that I said are not appropriate to talk about publicly. One idea is about priests and penance. I believe traditional priests should do serious penances like the saints and the early Christians did. Things like fasting, wearing hairshirts, using the discipline, etc.

[Gardener]

Now I am intrigued.

Are you intrigued? I guess how I said that would make people interested. I will tell you one of my ideas that I think is strange but not some of the more extreme ones that I said are not appropriate to talk about publicly. One idea is about priests and penance. I believe traditional priests should do serious penances like the saints and the early Christians did. Things like fasting, wearing hairshirts, using the discipline, etc.

How do you know what anyone does or doesn't do?

Maybe their penance is you (or me) in their confessional, and parish.

[Kaesekopf]

[emoji38]

I do know of diocesan priests who do penance for their parishioners, so it's not foreign to our age.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Matto]

How do you know what anyone does or doesn't do?

Maybe their penance is you (or me) in their confessional, and parish.

I don't know which priests do or do not do such penances. I just think they should. But this one is not my idea, but the Cure of Ars' advice to other priests. I know that some of the priests who do exorcisms like Father Ripperger do do such penances. I remember hearing about them that when they are doing exorcisms, if they do not fast strictly the devils make fun of them for their lack of penitence.

Edit: I mentioned Father Ripperger doing such penances. I wanted to correct something. I do not know which exact penances he does because I have never heard him mention them, but I know he does fast a lot because he mentioned that and I heard Charles Coulombe talking about another exorcist who before his cases he does a black fast which is forty days of eating nothing but bread and water.

[Mono no aware]

The problem with traditionalism (well, at least one problem) is that we all set ourselves up as the arbiter of Catholicism.  We read a few Internet articles, maybe a book or three, can parrot back some key phrases (salus animarum supemus lex esto!), and then start deciding so and so isn't Catholic enough, etc, etc.  It's a very real problem, and it's full sadness can be found (IMHO) in the "Resistance" (those booted from the SSPX or who abandoned the SSPX), for whom nothing is ever good enough. 

But, I imagine you would find the mass bulk of traditionalists (50-75%) follow along the standards, where a noisy minority would raise all hell, not unlike how liberals do nowadays.  (I daresay, to take a negative/pessimistic view, that the bulk don't care and are content to follow orders)

Well, the thing is, I would say that "the standards" as we have them now are pretty lax.  There is certainly a difference between what the basic strictures were for the early Church, and what the basic standards are for traditional Catholics in the modern age.  Any quick perusal of this thread or the music thread will reveal that.  Somewhere along the line, the plot got lost.  I don't even think it's necessarily a modern problem.  Some of Jerome's quotes were from a pope in the early twentieth century (I forget which pope) who kept lamenting the immodesty in female fashions that even Catholics were sporting.  But you can also see it in St. Francis de Sales' Introduction to the Devout Life, and that was in the seventeenth century, and it lamented laxity.  St. Francis really went back to the source and recovered what I would consider an "authentic Christianity."  I used to love that book, and I suppose I still do, but I picked it up a couple weeks ago and it had a melancholy and sad effect on me.  It seemed to me as if St. Francis' message had become a dead letter.  Which is not to say that there aren't any Philotheas left in the world—but I don't know.  I'm having a difficult time articulating how I felt.  I can't seem to complete the thought.  Feel free to ignore this post.

[Mono no aware]

In my opinion, it's not even that most trads misunderstand an important concept when they read it online, but they miss how that concept relates to the whole. As such, nuanced and complex ideas get collapsed into monopolized caricatures.

But a lot of these ideas are neither nuanced or complex.  Whether or not, say, a Christian should be out partying and dancing and enjoying sensuous music is a yes or no question.  The Early Church Fathers who answered this question said no.  If it was decided later that they were being too strict and puritan, and Christians can do these things "no problem," then that's fine.  My complaint would then be that this is relativism.

[Gardener]

In my opinion, it's not even that most trads misunderstand an important concept when they read it online, but they miss how that concept relates to the whole. As such, nuanced and complex ideas get collapsed into monopolized caricatures.

But a lot of these ideas are neither nuanced or complex.  Whether or not, say, a Christian should be out partying and dancing and enjoying sensuous music is a yes or no question.  The Early Church Fathers who answered this question said no.  If it was decided later that they were being too strict and puritan, and Christians can do these things "no problem," then that's fine.  My complaint would then be that this is relativism.

But a lot of those things had to do with pagan worship as well. There *is* a nuance to such things. Now, booty grinding is different than say... ball room or swing (depending).

What *is* "sensuous" music? Is Alt-country? Indie "rock"? etc?

There's a lot of generality which demands nuance.