← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Hugh Lincoln
Thread ID: 17856 | Posts: 20 | Started: 2005-04-19
2005-04-19 17:22 | User Profile
You bet your cassock he is.
2005-04-19 18:05 | User Profile
Austrian, to be more precise.
From the land of Adolf and Arnold!
Petr
2005-04-19 18:16 | User Profile
From a previous Reuters release:
... The excerpts from Ratzinger's book "Values in Times of Upheaval" published by Munich's Sueddeutsche Zeitung daily did not appear formally to break that vow of silence as they were most likely written even before Pope John Paul died on April 2.
"Europe needs to accept itself anew ... if it is to survive," wrote Ratzinger, a former archbishop of Munich.
"In the hour of its greatest success, Europe seems to have become empty inside, paralyzed by a life-threatening crisis to its health and dependent on transplants," he wrote, referring to the continent's low birthrate and need for immigrant labor.
He also criticized the collapse of traditional families and the drive to legalize gay marriage, a trend which meant that "the entire moral history of mankind is being left behind."
He rapped Western society for what he said was its correct decision to make criticism of Islam or Judaism a taboo but said it was a mistake to allow Christianity to be freely ridiculed and condemned.
"Believing Christians should see themselves as a creative minority" that could save Europe by helping to revive "the best of its heritage," he said.
2005-04-19 19:22 | User Profile
You guys know the new Pope's feelings about Jews?, that is to say, besides the Jewish propaganda that you hear in the news.
2005-04-19 19:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=SteamshipTime]He rapped Western society for what he said was its correct decision to make criticism of Islam or Judaism a taboo...Believing Christians should see themselves as a creative minority" that could save Europe by helping to revive "the best of its heritage"[/QUOTE]
:unsure: :wacko:
Somethin's not jibin' there.
2005-04-19 20:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]:unsure: :wacko:
Somethin's not jibin' there.[/QUOTE] Politicking, I suspect. If he hadn't made the obligatory nod to Islam and Judaism, they'd probably have him arrested.
2005-04-19 23:00 | User Profile
We are in a Christian church where we must believe not what reason thinks is right or what pleases me or you, but what the Scriptures tell us.
Honestly, Tex, I fail to understand where a guy who edits Scripture per his personal beliefs gets off suddently pretending it means jack once it meets his specifications. This have never jibed as far as I'm concerned.
2005-04-19 23:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=askel5]Honestly, Tex, I fail to understand where a guy who edits Scripture per his personal beliefs gets off suddently pretending it means jack once it meets his specifications. This have never jibed as far as I'm concerned.[/QUOTE]
What Scripture would that be, askel?
The one on selling indulgences? Purgatory? Papal infallability? Mother Mary as co-Mediatrix?
2005-04-19 23:35 | User Profile
Particularly right now when so many Catholics -- myself included -- are filled with hope that Ratzinger's going to combat the revolution from within which JPII only exacerbated with appointments like Mahoney, etc. ... you have to know that I'm not one to defend various corruptions or heretical reinterpretations and abuses of Catholic doctrine.
Nor am I interested in a discussion of those passages Bibliolators generally like to leave open to interpretation ... such as Christ's meaning of "is" at the last supper.
All I'm asking is how a guy who presumes to edit Scripture then pretends that Scripture is thereafter binding in a way it was not binding on him.
It's a fascination I have with Chosen, Elect and, generally, those who make the rules that only others must follow.
2005-04-19 23:43 | User Profile
My feeling is that there will be a black or Latino pope within three years, and that appointing Ratzinger was both a measure to buy time with which to sell the idea to the Church hierarchy and line up the necessary ducks ahead of time, and a sort of honorary last hurrah for the old guard; but one thing's for sure. Nobody gets to be Pope at 78 years of age without everybody having to do it all over again in a year or two, so the question is why go for a doorstop pontiff. And the only answer that makes sense is a struggle between acknowledging a dying traditional base and fearing the fecundity of the Third World's relentless demographic dominance, everywhere.
2005-04-19 23:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=askel5]Particularly right now when so many Catholics -- myself included -- are filled with hope that Ratzinger's going to combat the revolution from within which JPII only exacerbated with appointments like Mahoney, etc. ... you have to know that I'm not one to defend various corruptions or heretical reinterpretations and abuses of Catholic doctrine.
No, I'm sure you're not.
Nor am I interested in a discussion of those passages Bibliolators generally like to leave open to interpretation ... such as Christ's meaning of "is" at the last supper.
Sometimes the devil's in the details.
All I'm asking is how a guy who presumes to edit Scripture then pretends that Scripture is thereafter binding in a way it was not binding on him.
And again, show me the money, askel. What Scripture(s) did Luther edit and what Scripture(s) supported the papal bull Luther defied? Please keep in mind, we're not in a tavern. :)
2005-04-19 23:47 | User Profile
[B][I] - "All I'm asking is how a guy who presumes to edit Scripture then pretends that Scripture is thereafter binding in a way it was not binding on him."[/I][/B]
Just what and ([B]who[/B]) are you talking about in here? You mean how Protestants do not acknowledge apocryphal OT books?
Petr
2005-04-20 00:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]My feeling is that there will be a black or Latino pope within three years, and that appointing Ratzinger was both a measure to buy time with which to sell the idea to the Church hierarchy and line up the necessary ducks ahead of time, and a sort of honorary last hurrah for the old guard; but one thing's for sure. Nobody gets to be Pope at 78 years of age without everybody having to do it all over again in a year or two, so the question is why go for a doorstop pontiff. And the only answer that makes sense is a struggle between acknowledging a dying traditional base and fearing the fecundity of the Third World's relentless demographic dominance, everywhere.[/QUOTE] If or when there is a pope from the Third World, the progressives will not be happy. The prelates from South America and Africa are on the front lines of the fight. Speaking from what I know, Episcopal bishops from those continents are furious with the Western Church's progressivism. I believe the Third World's Catholic prelates are as well.
2005-04-20 00:55 | User Profile
Well, thanks for the tip on "apocrypha" ... I was headed to Maccabees and a few choice word changes but instead I veered off into a whole 'nother direction only to find that Luther takes his cue from the "self-hating Jews" only too anxious to rid themselves of any evidence a virgin shall bear a child.
Catholic discussion of Old Testament canon.
That's something I'll have to follow up on because it's entirely new to me ... and to you, I'm guessing, since the notion you have been duped by Luther into taking your lead from those Jews most likely to willfully deny the Christ and obscure the path of prophecy leading to his incarnation is rather absurd, no?
Which Bull are you talking about? I'm having trouble deciding if it's pre-Luther or post-Luther.
2005-04-20 01:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE]If or when there is a pope from the Third World, the progressives will not be happy. [/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm assuming they'll go with a hard-line conservative. But major religons being money-making entities, and all money-making entities being numbers games, they'd have to weigh the costs of electing Pope Mutumbo I among their first-world faithful ....and after 30 years of being meat-tenderized about racism, I'd say Westerners would be overall ok with it - versus picking another 75-year old European in 2 or 3 years and risk alienating and perhaps losing the fastest-growing substrain of their flock. I don't think the pro-Mutumbo side had their ducks lined up yet aand accepted Ratzinger as a part-time caretaker buying them time to marshal their forces and squeeze the fence sitters one way or the other. Ratzinger seems to me to be a political compromise struck by various Vatican power-players; as cynical a bit of Papal bull as we've seen in centuries.
2005-04-20 01:11 | User Profile
=== as cynical a bit of Papal bull as we've seen in centuries.
What's this "we" business, White Man?
Given the fact most, if not all, of our current plague of utopianism was birthed at the Great Lobotomy of Faith and Reason, I'm not sure the decadent and (thankfully) dying-off remains of either Bibliolators or "Enlightened" are in a position to opine on Papist bull of any sort.
I should probably check to make sure Luther-anism still quotes all of Christ (the devil being in the more detailed treatments of words like "is" they did leave in), but I'm pretty sure that even if the smoke of Satan has permeated the sanctuary for some time now, the Church is going to withstand the gates of hell.
And -- in case you wondered what He meant by "the meek shall inherit the earth" -- it'll be those yellow, brown and black folks yet humble enough to actually live an authentically Christian life who'll ensure that the heart of Christendom lives on long after the last pasty-faced Elect has breathed his last on the subject of that White Supremacy which serves as foil-in-kind to the likewise whiny, oppressed and hate-filled members of the Rainbow Coalition.
2005-04-20 18:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]Austrian, to be more precise.
From the land of Adolf and Arnold!
Petr[/QUOTE]
He's Bavarian.
2005-04-20 18:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]My feeling is that there will be a black or Latino pope within three years, and that appointing Ratzinger was both a measure to buy time with which to sell the idea to the Church hierarchy and line up the necessary ducks ahead of time, and a sort of honorary last hurrah for the old guard; but one thing's for sure. Nobody gets to be Pope at 78 years of age without everybody having to do it all over again in a year or two, so the question is why go for a doorstop pontiff. And the only answer that makes sense is a struggle between acknowledging a dying traditional base and fearing the fecundity of the Third World's relentless demographic dominance, everywhere.[/QUOTE]
He is an interim Pope, no doubt about that. He looks pretty healthy, though. No reason he can't live another ten years.
My best guess is that the next Pope will be from Brazil, the world's largest (nominally) Catholic country. There are a couple of candidates there, time will tell.
2005-04-20 20:26 | User Profile
I surely hate "judging a man by his past," but after all Joseph Ratzinger was a soldier in Hitler's Army during the "Holocaust" years, albeit that he'd been drafted and that he'd eventually deserted. He'd also been captured and held as a POW by American troops for a short time after he'd deserted from the Nazi Army.
As I've read, but don't quite understand, Ratzinger had originally entered the Catholic Seminary before he'd been drafted into the Army, and then re-entered the Seminary shortly after being released by the Americans. Unless there were no such exemptions permitted in Germany, it would seem that he could have and should have avoided the draft as a "conscientious objector" against war in general or against the atrocities that were being committed against Jews and Poles.
He was ordained in 1951, and he became first the Bishop and then the Cardinal of Munich only 16 years later.
These seeming contradictions make it difficult to fathom whether or not he was (or is) "anti-Semitic" on a personal basis.
Time will tell.
2005-04-22 06:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=kminta]I surely hate "judging a man by his past," but after all Joseph Ratzinger was a soldier in Hitler's Army during the "Holocaust" years, albeit that he'd been drafted and that he'd eventually deserted. He'd also been captured and held as a POW by American troops for a short time after he'd deserted from the Nazi Army.
As I've read, but don't quite understand, Ratzinger had originally entered the Catholic Seminary before he'd been drafted into the Army, and then re-entered the Seminary shortly after being released by the Americans. Unless there were no such exemptions permitted in Germany, it would seem that he could have and should have avoided the draft as a "conscientious objector" against war in general or against the atrocities that were being committed against Jews and Poles.
He was ordained in 1951, and he became first the Bishop and then the Cardinal of Munich only 16 years later.
These seeming contradictions make it difficult to fathom whether or not he was (or is) "anti-Semitic" on a personal basis.
Time will tell.[/QUOTE]
Kminta: I watched a CNN spot on this yesterday that suggested that he joined the seminary on a deferrment but all of those were revoked when the war turned decisively against Germany.
As to the anti-Semistism charge, I think it's clear that Benedict XVI knows the score. I'm sure that he is an anti-Semite by Jewish standards, inasmuch as he knows the Jews' game and understands their implacable hatred from Christ and His Church.