Remember Mr Cricket? Flipping off the entire world? Loathing the people who desire traditional worship? Drowning wonk shouting for attention?
Keep in mind what I have been saying. For Solum Vaticanum II extremists, the imagined spirit of the Council gives permission to reinterpret everything before the Council. Everything.
From a reader…
Andrea Grillo continues to show his cards. He writes in a comment to a critic of a recent (Nov. 8) article of his:
“The analogy between the Tridentine rite and marriage nullity is based on the need to translate tradition. What was delivered to us by the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century no longer has any structural evidence. The ‘fiction’ of nullity is only an extreme case of a theology of marriage conditioned not by Scripture or theology but by the Tametsi Decree. The inability to distinguish between these levels is the ‘meanness’ at play. That only marriage justifies the use of sex is a Pauline view that history has profoundly altered. And it calls for a profound rethinking, even as the Second Vatican Council inaugurated with the liturgical reform and with the rethinking of the Church, the Word, and the relationship [of these] with the world.”
Loading ...
There few things that are creepier or more suspicious than an old man telling you to have sex whenever you and that it’s cool.
Just sayin’.
Does this guy seriously have people that listen to this guy? I feel like I have seriously wasted by faculty of reason by even reading what he wrote.
Rethinking. The secret magic decoder ring word of Vatican II which gives you the permission and power to change absolutely anything. Groovy!
This snippet in English brings to mind the sort of bizarre, self-serving rationalizations which were endemic across the late sixties into the seventies, until John Paul arose. Then they went somewhat underground — or at least muted their braying at the moon.
It is sickening to read this obtuse vacuous effort to shed the Cross, to abandon Christian understanding and life. Do realize that far more erroneous confections are current across that which is presently functioning as “theology.” While tragic, it is also in some ways comical to see — once again! — these moronic academics drowning in their own notions, subsumed in self-deception and self-justification, diminish the inspired texts of Saint Paul while simultaneously chastising those faithful to tradition of being insufficiently immersed in Sacred Scripture.
They twist themselves in knots to avoid, to negate, the perennial Magisterium.
And this is merely what rises to the top of the bowl. This constituency of fraudulent academics across a spectrum of religious denominations, not the least of which are those professing to be Roman Catholic, are long involved in a “Christology” which seeks to deconstruct and eliminate our understanding of the Divinity of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. Nothing is off limits for their effort to irradicate the Faith. Nothing. And this very crew is held in the highest esteem among a substantial portion of the episcopate who hunger for credence among the secular materialists of the academic class, foolishly believing they will find any sort of acknowledgement there. They are and will be only regarded a laughing stock for their betrayal of all that is True and Life.
I assume he refers to “Pauline” as to “Pauline Christianity”, the theological development of the faith developed by the Apostle Paul.
However, it is ironic that Paul VI did 2 things:
*Gave him the Novus ordo (aka “Pauline” Mass) he so loves.
*Gave us Humanae Vitae, which could be considered “Pauline” in a Traditional sense.
Irony is fun!
Gave us the
“And it calls for a profound morally bankrupt rethinking”
There, I fixed it. I could have fixed more but the insertion of those two words covers the general theme.
“For Solum Vaticanum II extremists, the imagined spirit of the Council gives permission [to the leftists] to reinterpret everything”
To quote a Polish friend, PRAWDA.
“Rethinking. The secret magic decoder ring word of Vatican II which gives you the permission and power to change absolutely anything. Groovy!”
Right, Ariseyedead.
It’s the Age of Aquarius all over again. Let the sunshine in!
“We’re so modern! We totally reinvented sex!”
“No, you didn’t. Nothing about sex has changed since we left Eden.”
“Birth control!”
“The Romans had contraceptives. Yet somehow the early Church had the same ideas about sex.”
“Well, you’re just narrow-minded and sad!”
“And I don’t have any STDs or true crime victim lifestyle, either.”
“We’re so modern! We totally reinvented sex!”
“No, you didn’t. Nothing about sex has changed since we left Eden.”
“Birth control!”
“The Romans had contraceptives. Yet somehow the early Church had the same ideas about sex.”
“Well, you’re just narrow-minded and sad!”
“And I don’t have any STDs or true crime victim lifestyle, either.”
What a nerd!
This is just assertion after assertion with no justifying argumentation. How has “history . . . profoundly altered” the Christian view of licit sexual relations? Because people are more promiscuous these days? How does the “is” change the “ought”?
It seems absurd for any Christian to not acknowledge that only sex within marriage can accord with the virtue of chastity. The question of what is or isn’t a marriage is the more difficult question. What was considered essential to marriage validity has varied such a lot over time even within Catholicism. In some sense it’s maybe like canon law of today gives the Church’s authority (via “canonical form”) the role a girl’s father or tutor (via his provision of a legally-necessary dowry) would have had under Roman law to approve the union desired by the bride and groom. I know i’ve seen Dr Ed Peters write that he thinks the Church should do away with “canonical form” requirements. Don’t know what I think about that.
Conceptions of what marriage “is” or how it’s configured on a natural human level, have really varied over time. For instance, the idea of the male taking the female as his wife, and the female being given in marriage (by her father), and the woman being “for” the man, and the man as having headship over the woman who belongs to his oikos, is present in Scripture as it was in ancient culture and law. But (and I’m not saying there aren’t good reasons) it’s not how we order or configure the matter today, even though this order is significant for the way in which marriage is an image of the relationship of Christ and the Church. Divinity and humanity, Christ and the Church, are not equals except in the sense that they are a union, they are one flesh.
This reads like:
WORDS! BIG WORDS! MUST BE RELEVANT AND PROFOUND! PAY ATTENTION TO ME!
The moral, natural and Church law is very clear and simple on this subject. Why do people insist on muddying the waters?
Further proof that arguments for “liturgical reform” and discarding “stale” tradition typically trace back to a deeper covert desire to overthrown traditional Christian moral teaching, especially about sexuality.
Because “the Devil always shows his tail.”
Also note that the same “reformers” who are the first to condemn Catholic moral theology for obsessing over “pelvic issues” are generally the same ones who discuss them incessantly.
BW- that was my first thought also
Father Z- this came to mind in my native Italian “ma che sciocco è”
It strikes me that the kind of “thinking” and “arguments” presented by these modernists is hollow, and that they can be shown to be hollow even from their own premises. For example, even if one grants that some rules and standards are “culturally conditions” and capable of being changed over time as history and the culture changes, this could not excuse the sexual revolution of the 1960s, precisely because it rejected it’s own cultural standard:
What was delivered to us by the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century no longer has any structural evidence.
But if it was the deliverance of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th, then the 1960s’ was not a “rethinking” of the moral principles in light of “new cultural conditions”, but a sheer REJECTION of the culture that was presented to them.
As usual, marxism is a shell game of assertions and “arguments” (scare quotes necessary) mocked up as if they actually believed any of it. No, the dupes are the myriads of school and college graduates who have been propagandized by 16 years of the mantra, never even aware that the entire edifice is merely a façade in order to sequester power into the hands of those in the know.