Heartland

Well at least one could start believing this, reading yesterday's news:
At first Mr. Ratzinger proves all the sentiments ever felt by his opposition by defying all good sense and rehabillitating a holocaust denier, and then this happens:
Like a bomb out of thin air a car hits a church.
Haleluja, it's a miracle! The Lord hath spoken!
So far experts can not yet really explain how the Skoda Octavia could lift off like that.

awesome picture!

He launched a station wagon ????

Damn. I am suitably impressed...

Stylish garage. Like the tower.

he probably wanted to be confessed and did not find the main door

Skoda's seem more like the Devils work (imho)

Why the big surprise about Ratzi the Nazi?

No surprise. It's a Skoda. They even get airborne when you hit second gear...

IZ.

eotunun wrote: Well at least one could start believing this, reading yesterday's news:
At first Mr. Ratzinger proves all the sentiments ever felt by his opposition by defying all good sense and rehabillitating a holocaust denier, and then this happens:
Like a bomb out of thin air a car hits a church.
Haleluja, it's a miracle! The Lord hath spoken!
So far experts can not yet really explain how the Skoda Octavia could lift off like that.

For the record, he "de-excommunicated" a 600,000 person splinter group, that happens to contain one whack-job. Not exactly what you're painting it as, but whatever.

The desire to bring back the SPPX is worrying in the light of Ratzinger's other recent decisions and statements though; for example he recently said that homosexuality is as much a threat to as the destruction of the rain forests {source}. He seems to be bent on undoing as much of his predecessor's liberalisation of the church as he can.

In the light of this rapprochement, I wonder if his eventual goal is the repeal of the changes made in the Second Vatican Council.

markfiend wrote:The desire to bring back the SPPX is worrying in the light of Ratzinger's other recent decisions and statements though; for example he recently said that homosexuality is as much a threat to as the destruction of the rain forests {source}. He seems to be bent on undoing as much of his predecessor's liberalisation of the church as he can.

In the light of this rapprochement, I wonder if his eventual goal is the repeal of the changes made in the Second Vatican Council.

I think the desire to bring back the SPPX guys is simply a recognition that a splintered Christendom is a weakened Christendom (it's also easier to discuss with them why they're theologically wrong if they're not hanging out in North Dakota or something with their own 'Pope' claiming that they're the real Chruch); remember, the Church routinely accepts Anglican parishes back into the fold, as well as other Christian denominations. What would have happened if Martin Luther had been welcomed back, and told that the Church would take his concerns seriously?

As for homosexuality, his comments seem to be perfectly acceptable within the context of the teleological metaphysic the Church holds. They may not be popular, but I don't think their intention is to be popular. Insofar as it was a critique of gender theory, as the article suggests, I think that's perfectly fine: gender theory is one of the pernicious influences on the academic world (I used to teach in a department surrounded by those folks, and it was maddening; they couldn't read a text except as a some sort of gender-document). It's also notable that many of the aggrieved voices in the article don't really seem to be responding to what he said, which was: ""The tropical forests do deserve our protection. But man, as a creature, does not deserve any less... What’s needed is something like a ‘human ecology,’ understood in the right sense. It’s not simply an outdated metaphysics if the Church speaks of the nature of the human person as man and woman, and asks that this order of creation be respected." Having not read the speech (and I don't intend to, since it's an issue I don't really care about), but having read some of his other writings (the infamous Regensberg address that inflamed the Muslims and, many years ago, his book on Bonaventure), I'm inclined to think that, as usual, there's a lot more subtlety to what he's saying than comes across in the reports.

I don't think the eventual goal is the overthrow of Vatican 2, but I do think that he want to allow more room for pre-Vatican 2 ways of doing things (which is something Catholics generally want as well: there's been a resurgence of the Latin Mass, for instance).

sultan2075 wrote:I think the desire to bring back the SPPX guys is simply a recognition that a splintered Christendom is a weakened Christendom

But rapprochement with a right-wing group like SPPX risks alienating the left of the church* -- which Ratzinger seems to be quite keen to do. YMMV.

* not to mention members of other faiths.

sultan2075 wrote:What would have happened if Martin Luther had been welcomed back, and told that the Church would take his concerns seriously?

Or even a healing of the great schism of 1054?

sultan2075 wrote:I'm inclined to think that, as usual, there's a lot more subtlety to what he's saying than comes across in the reports.

I think you're probably right

sultan2075 wrote: I don't think the eventual goal is the overthrow of Vatican 2, but I do think that he want to allow more room for pre-Vatican 2 ways of doing things (which is something Catholics generally want as well: there's been a resurgence of the Latin Mass, for instance).

I'm not an expert on Catholic Liturgical practices, but I think there's room for liturgical traditionalism without the need for a reversal of JPII's ecumenical policies.

For the record: The witty twist in the connection between the two events was what was on my mind when I posted this, Sultan.
-I just liked the combination of "religion" "car" "bomb" and constructing an act of god here, it made up for a good, slightly macabre joke in the context. (Although I was sure that I'd spawn another outbreak of serious debate. I play on this forum like on an organ of evil! [Please insert diabolical laughter here] )
What I wonder is why the heavens (or hell, or other possibly suitable mythical places or states of mind/conciousness, pre- or postmortal, according to the individual religous confession, tradition or favoured design) it couldn't have been 599999 "de-excommunicated"?
I guess you noticed by now what I think of the church and especially such conservativists as Mr. Ratzinger (I was baptized protestant, so if I call him pope, highness, his honour or whatever, I fear the ghost of Martin Luther will throw an ink well at me.. ) who deny people their inbred nature.
Be that a starting point for theological debate or theoretically a justifiable idea or not. Even more so when it comes from an organistaion the practical value of which to me isn't much more than being a parasite to society.

eotunun wrote:I play on this forum like on an organ of evil! [Please insert diabolical laughter here] )

You keep your organ of evil to yourself!

The SSPX is overtly anti-Semitic.

SSPX site wrote:The Jews were consequently directly responsible for the crucifixion. Deicide is the name given to the crime of killing the person who is God, namely the Son of God in His human nature. It is those persons who brought about the crucifixion who are guilty of deicide, namely the Jews.

Benedict either embraces SSPX beliefs or is so interested in Roman Catholic "unity" that he doesn't care. Neither possibility speaks well of him.

SSPX-a follow up to SSV?

Society of Saint Pius X

Since you ask

markfiend wrote:The SSPX is overtly anti-Semitic.

SSPX site wrote:The Jews were consequently directly responsible for the crucifixion. Deicide is the name given to the crime of killing the person who is God, namely the Son of God in His human nature. It is those persons who brought about the crucifixion who are guilty of deicide, namely the Jews.

Benedict either embraces SSPX beliefs or is so interested in Roman Catholic "unity" that he doesn't care. Neither possibility speaks well of him.

How do you convince someone of error if you're not talking to them? Rescinding excommunication isn't some sort of admission of agreement, it's simply saying "You can come back inside," which strikes me as the first step in addressing the serious problems with SSPX. How do you reform a heretic if you're not willing to talk to him? He actively wants to avoid the sort of things seen when dealing with heretics in the past. Given that he was in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he's not going to simply accept hersey-qua-heresy back into the Church. Consequently (Wikipedia ahoy!) Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the SSPX, said that the group "had to iron out doctrinal differences with the Vatican before a reconciliation could take place."

Incidentally, per Wikipedia, his 1968 book, Introduction to Christianity argues that the Pope has a duty to hear differing voices within the Church--again, they can't have dialogue with the SSPX people without bringing them back into the fold (otherwise, they will continue to maintain that they are the true Catholic church). It's the first step in correcting them. If the Church is serious about the claims of salvation, and the SSPX are in error, and they are willing to listen and be convinced, than the Church, under her own moral teaching, has a duty to reach out to them.

This just in:

Life of foetus more important than life of child says cleric.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7930380.stm

Are you suprised Mark?

This from a religion that routinely protects its own child molestors.

A new level of cuntiness, even from the Holy See.

"Suffer the little children who come unto me"

Indeed.

Have I made up a new word?

"Cuntiness" - the act of being a cnut

streamline wrote:"Cuntiness" - the act of being a cnut

For reference see....

A very appropriate word. Trying to colonise the planet with a rapaciousness that's the envy of MacDonalds.

New Sisters album = Proof God exists

streamline wrote:Are you suprised Mark?

Not really.

markfiend wrote:The SSPX is overtly anti-Semitic.

SSPX site wrote:The Jews were consequently directly responsible for the crucifixion. Deicide is the name given to the crime of killing the person who is God, namely the Son of God in His human nature. It is those persons who brought about the crucifixion who are guilty of deicide, namely the Jews.

Benedict either embraces SSPX beliefs or is so interested in Roman Catholic "unity" that he doesn't care. Neither possibility speaks well of him.

By that logic so are the Italians guilty, the lineal descendants of the Romans and Pilate, who Christ apportions blame by name .I always read it as him blaming the Sanhredin and the High Priest who presided over his trial, rather than the Jewry. Hardly seems likely he'd blame his own people who he claimed to be the King of..but then again no-one speaks ancient Hebrew, so god knows what got lost in translation.
Strangely the only historical account of Christ's death I ever found was an aside in Suetonius stating Nero Caesar called for it to divert attention away from his disastrous handling of the great fire. Something along the lines of "turned his rage on a cult called the Christians, and had their leader Christus crucified".

As for the RC, they've got a good example in the Anglican church, and the CofE in particular ,of what damage splits can do and how a church can easily slide into utter irrelevance when it tries to be everything to everyone. By sticking to their guns they will at least be seen as standing for something, which the Anglican church no longer seems to.