Saturday, September 27, 2014

Putative Catholics, the Orthodox, the left's hierarchy of truths, and more

  • Parting shots, on being kicked off Facebook's "Catholic & Orthodox: Steps Towards a Reunited Church" "OicwRs and Ex-Catholics: Steps Towards an Imaginary Church (Real Catholics Are Idiots)" page.
    • If James Arturo Broberg and Stuart Koehl really speak for the theology of the Byzantine Catholic churches, then those churches should be suppressed immediately. Thank God they don't.
    • Either the Catholic defined doctrines after the schism can be rendered in Byzantine theological terms, the way unlatinized Greek Catholics do, to satisfy the Orthodox or we can all just go home because otherwise union will never happen. Nor should it on false terms.
    • Good Orthodox such as Fr. John Morris who reject my Catholic terms for union, believing we are in grave error, don't grind my gears. It's the mirror of when Pope Benedict repeated that we are the true church. The mainliners whined as if people still listened to them; the Russians nodded in complete understanding and respect. He was talking their language. What grinds my gears are disloyal Catholics who want to throw away all our post-schism definitions of doctrine ("does not apply to the East" means "the church no longer teaches," same game as Novus Ordo liberals), and tell the Orthodox to receive us all, including the Pope, economically into Orthodoxy, the clergy in their orders (all of which the Orthodox can do), as if they could tell both churches what to do. I've said, because at least they sacramentally recognize us, OicwRs are more an offshoot of us than them. I might take that back. They act like a hypothetical false-flag operation of "ecumenical" Orthodox (the nice ones who believe we have real bishops). So they're really Orthodox. If we can't convince OicwRs, they SHOULD leave, they should convert. Because they're not Catholic.
    • Fellows like Stuart are more than annoying; they're dangerous because at first they resemble unlatinized Catholics (which is why I approached Stuart 15 years ago) when they're not really Catholic. If anything, they're sabotaging unlatinized Catholicism by identifying with the Orthodox. But their two-true-churches freemasonry/gnosticism disrespects the Orthodox (fine churchmen like Fr. John) as much as us. Stuart is supremely self-satisfied. As Jesus said, he has his reward in THIS life.
    • On that note, Mary Lanser and suchlike: talk doctrine all you like. You've left the church so you're not my problem anymore. In your life, YOUR will be done. The OCA should throw you out on your ear but that's not my call.
    • I think more snotty dissenter "graecophile transritualist" Catholics use the putdown "Uniatism," for Greek Riters who are good Catholics, than Orthodox do, except the Russians. They hate the Ukrainian Catholics and the feeling is mutual.
  • Notes on the new Ukrainian Catholic catechism, Christ Our Pascha. Since the Ukrainian liturgy was never Novusized I always have expected more from them. Comments based upon a "rough" English translation. My first look gives me the impression that although dogma may be there, it certainly is toned down (a polite expression for the otherwise accurate description as "pablum" like the USCCB's Adult Catholic Catechism and the Compendium of the CCC). Yeah, I'm probably being too harsh, but when compared with the admittedly dated language and triumphalist tone of "My Catholic Faith" [a reformatted version of the old Baltimore Catechism, Volume 3], the few excerpts from the rough English translation from the Ukrainian are lacking in a robust explanation of Catholic dogma and doctrine. At least with "My Catholic Faith," one has no doubt where the Catholic Church stands dogmatically. That's what I was afraid of. Not heretical but all nice and PC and not really Byzantine, so it's of little use both to teach our own people OR to reach out and talk to the Orthodox. FAIL.
  • By the way, the old catechisms get the job done for most people. Most people aren't that spiritual or bright. Baltimore No. 3 (have it; love it) gets the essentials across to the class's dumb kids while being a starting point for the smart and religious.
  • Traditionalist and conservative Catholic taxonomy and pitfalls. From A Real Live One. Jeff Culbreath already taught me some of this years ago: that in the church, traditionalists and conservatives are different, which explains some of the shocks I got in the '80s; why the Wanderer and CUF Catholics didn't rally behind the traditional Mass and the saintly Archbishop Lefebvre, for example. In fact the Novus Ordo neocons were trying to blackguard us (as Brideshead puts it), saying we weren't really Catholic anymore when all we wanted was the same church as before Vatican II. But the conservatives have their pluses: focused on doctrine and other essentials, obedient to legitimate church authority (the church can do things we don't like; it can't change doctrine like Episcopalians and Mormons), and not fixated on one culture (the sin of the Orthodox) or historical period. We, on the other hand, have a bigger vision of the church than the neos' and liberals' revisionism: "conserving tradition since 1970" and going along with St. John Paul the Overrated on altar girls (good thing the church is indefectible; women's ordination is a dead letter among our people). Joseph V. and Fr. Chadwick are also long right that the real pre-concilar church and traditionalism are often regrettably different. ("They are not what we were.") The church (sinners, from JFK and Sam Giancana to your weird aunt) vs. a spiritually proud cult with the church's trappings. There's a case for broadening traditionalism to include more historical options; in theory that's already so. But: in practice not, because... 1962 is a LIVING tradition, in my parish and elsewhere. Those people are still around, literally, to keep it real, to show us how to do it right. One of our supply priests, a Jesuit, was formed in his order mostly before the council; our parishioners include a couple born in the 1920s. There are no medieval Englishmen to show us how to really do Sarum or York. Finally, the kind of people who reject our living tradition in favor of arcane historical stuff are often poseurs and hypocrites: showing off that, unlike pious ignoranti trads, they even KNOW about St. Pius X's breviary reform or the rubrics of the Sarum Mass... as do their same-sex partners and women priests. (High-church liberal leapfrogging loyalties: mere nostalgia for a tradition not entirely gone, such as the '50s, is for morons; studying dead liturgics "when it wasn't cool" is cool.)
  • War on Christianity: banning The Hiding Place. As I say, the left has a hierarchy of truths. Towards the top of the list are hating Christ and Christianity and getting whitey. The Jews, as in the Holocaust, are only useful to them towards those ends. (Rather like liberal and Jewish criticism of Christian Zionists: some of them don't really care about the Jews, only their dispensationalist prophecy that has most Jews die — other evos want to undo the Book of Acts; Jewish wannabes. Many Jews including Israelis hate the evos, part of general left-wing disdain, but are willing to use them to keep the U.S. government support for Israel coming.) Likewise gays and women are thrown under the bus for the Mohammedans (Steve Sailer: lefties' loyalties leapfrog and they fetishize the Other). So devout Protestant Corrie ten Boom's autobio's banned for being "sectarian." A threat to Protestantism's newest bastard, secular humanism, now the state schools' de facto religion.
  • Written on the fly in a trattoria: Eucharistic Prayer II, the pseudo-canon of antipope St. Hippolytus. Lee Poteet: "And they [Catholics] presume to get upset about the Book of Common Prayer!" Good thing the church is indefectible despite bozos like Bugnini (Cranmer minus the talent) and his buddies. EP II is the express-line canon; in Catholic real life, good if you want to get out fast for a Sunday full of recreation or family time. Like the whole Novus Ordo, not my favorite but it gets the job done. The BCP canon is beautiful prose but has theological problems: "by his oblation of himself ONCE OFFERED"... matching the Articles calling "the sacrifices (sic) of Masses... rather repugnant to the Word of God... blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits." I'm grateful that my Episcopal background gave me a better liturgical formation than the Novus Ordo but I've read the BCP and history, and have been to St. John Southworth's grave and St. Margaret Clitherow's house. I don't hate the Anglican Church but I don't miss it either.
  • Our take on the Novus Ordo is just like ritualist Anglo-Catholics' take on the BCP: it's not heretical and contains all that is necessary, but that does not mean, nor do we have to believe, that it is ideal. It is far from that.
  • Goodbye, Mother; goodbye, Father. A self-defeating proposal among Connecticut Episcopalians. My answer. By the way, the more liberal the Episcopalians get, the smaller, whiter, and richer they get; the middle-class family that loves Jesus is less welcome.
  • I feel for the Christians, Alawites, and Yazidis in Iraq and Syria but I'm not afraid of the Mohammedans. They're backward and can't conquer us, even with immigration. Rather, I fear our neocons and leftists.

3 comments:

  1. I feel for the Christians, Alawites, and Yazidis in Iraq and Syria but I'm not afraid of the Mohammedans. They're backward and can't conquer us, even with immigration.

    The Christian and Alawite government and business elites said the same thing about Sunni fertility rates. Demography is destiny.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I see from that thread on facebook Ms. Lanser has finally decided to formally defect from the Church. I believe she was going to an Orthodox parish on Sundays for a least a decade prior to this, which was an odd situation. Going to a parish where you can't commune, while there were most likely literally dozens of Catholic parishes in her area where you can receive the sacraments. She would always protest she'd never accept being "chrismated" in Orthodoxy because it would be a denial of the grace of her Catholic baptism and confirmation.

    Anthony

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right. I always assumed Miss Lanser was odd but sound; I could sympathize up to a point. Some Roman Catholics are called to become Eastern, not going into schism, of course. Metropolitan Andrew (Sheptytsky) should be their patron. She's always claimed she's not doing it because of the liturgy, but another source tells me the Novus Ordo around State College, Pa. leaves something to be desired; easy to believe. Anyway, if you're called to be Byzantine but there's no Greek Catholic parish in reach of you, which is her claimed situation, I approve of things such as getting very involved in your friendly local OCA parish, even going to the quickest, lowest Novus Ordo (no funny business) for confession and Communion (shouldn't be that hard to find a sympathetic Catholic priest as there are lots of Catholic priests) and going to Divine Liturgy as well as Vespers, etc. Among her valid options, in my opinion: go to the Catholics for confession but get spiritual direction (counseling, not the sacrament of confession) from an Orthodox priest, even though I'm wary of a parish priest who would play staretz.

      For a long time that's how one gentleman (far longer than me; about 15 years) and I (five or six years) participated at St. Clement's Episcopal Church here. He was a former parishioner who'd returned to the Catholic Church; he held no formal membership nor received the sacraments at St. Clement's anymore but still ran the altar servers and, with his friends, was very much part of the heart and soul of the parish. The great change under Canon Reid pushed him and them out; they are all now Catholic only, Tridentine. I was still nominally Orthodox but obviously looking to get out; part of my then-priest's kind nature was I went to St. Clement's with his blessing.

      Anyway, in that context what Miss Lanser was asking for — to commune for economy's sake, without joining — wasn't screwball, but of course not possible. But what she's doing is still outrageous to both churches. Not the Orthodox receiving her through confession only. Such economic reception of ex-Catholics has long been the Russian way; how they took me. No, she's boasting about going in without really leaving us, without repudiating anything; two true churches. Converting with her fingers crossed. As much as I don't like the Orthodox rejecting us, the OCA is honor-bound to have no part of that; it should say no to her. Dishonest all around and I can't see it coming to a good end for anyone involved.

      In her own way, she's as arrogant as Stuart Koehl, who sits in judgment of both churches.

      Delete

Leave comment