This episode begins with a brief update on how our “Late for Lent” experiments are going, after which we launch into a series of corrections of all the misinformation and ignorance we disseminated in our last episode (in our defense, lady-parts are complicated). We then take a couple calls from Presbyterians who betray everything they stand for by listening to our show (which gives one of us no small amount of satisfaction), after which we talk about Trump a little bit, which is always fun. Jason answers a listener’s question about why he is still a Catholic, and Christian describes our experience caucusing for Bernie a couple weeks ago (we had to interact with the public face-to-face [shudder]). Our “Feeding Friendsy” segment launches us into a theological rant about how Jews aren’t so special after all, after which we share our biebers—Jason is biebered by selective evidence from gun cultists, while Christian’s bieber has to do with ignorance and the legal system.
Also, and not to be ethnocentric or anything, but other cultures are just wrong a lot of the time. There, we said it.
Podcast #18: Referees, Rioting, and the Right to Die
Podcast #178: Tech and Pills
Podcast #258: Spaghetti, the Rapture, and Assisted Suicide
Podcast #115: Space Travel, Human Filth, and “Science”
I always thought it was “feeding frenzy”. Clever titling.
I wouldn’t in ANY way consider myself Presbyterian, but I do atend an Orthodox Presbyterian Church with my family. And, at least until I enevitabally
• If Jason got any more low key, he’d be asleep.
• I wake up at 4:45 and usually go to sleep around 10:30.
• I don’t know, if you wanted to work for the Trump campaign, you might want to highlight the word Nazi in your CSV.
• I’ve learned everything I know about music from worship songs. There are three cords, you play them 100 times and repeat the same words over and over and over again while doing so. Anything else is the devil’s work.
• Counter-point: Jazz.
• Drunk History with Jason Stelman.
• And other ancient historians love to embellish details if it makes for a better story. People approaching the bible however are worried that if the gospel writers did this, then it invalidates the rest of the story.
• Every time you touch yourself, the centurion drives another nail into Jesus’ hand.
• Perhaps Jesus’ cry of being forsaken was because that was what he felt like when he was suffering. It’s a cry of humanity. Where the heck are you? Why is this happening? No great schism. Just the cry of humanity to a God that seems very distant in our lives as calamity befalls us. As if God had heard our complaints and decided to experience human suffering for himself to not just understand our emotions and conditions, but to experience them himself so he could greater empathize with our suffering.
• But I know that would sort of require God to learn something which I know plants me firmly in the heretic camp.
• But I was already a Protestant, so I already had a house in Heresy town, right, guys?
• Trump is a Narcissist. He enjoys the attention and now that he’s within breathing distance of becoming president, he probably sees it as a validation of his awesomeness and superiority.
• Your hell would be a lot like Earth, but the only booze available is lukewarm Coors Light.
• Heh… you said caucus.
• There should be a systematic reform of our political elections. Four weeks for nomination elections. All states vote for their nominees on the same day so every state gets a say. Then your political conventions to make it official. Then four weeks of general election campaigning culminating on Election Day held on a Saturday which is a mandated Federal holiday for all employees with voting being compulsory.
• MTV was the devil’s channel back in my youth. Now it’s the ‘validating every awful thing I think about young people’ channel. I’m old.
• Our vote doesn’t matter because we don’t vote. If Democrats especially had turned out in 2010 and 2014, the political landscape would be vastly superior to what it is now. If people would turn out to vote in State elections, we probably wouldn’t have such dominance by Republicans at the State and local level. People are getting screwed because they don’t vote. They could turn out and change things, but they aren’t.
• There are only two ways to change things: voting or violence, but most people have chosen to do nothing.
• For the record, video game testing sucks as a job. So glad I got out of it.
• First, assuming that God actually did promise that He would bless those that bless Abraham and curse those that curse him: Germany… still on the map. Plenty of Germans running about; Rome… lasted about 350 years after wiping Jerusalem off the map and killing or crucifying over a million Jews, and the Byzantines lasted another 1,000 years after the fall of the Western Empire.
• Second, Israel does not equal the Israeli government. Sometimes the best way to support a nation is to tell their government when they’re acting like assholes. I wish our friends had been better friends to us in the runup to the Iraq war and said, “Stop that shit.” If your friend is about to do something profoundly stupid that will hurt himself or others, it is your moral obligation as his friend to warn him and try to reason with him.
• Third, lest we forget, in the current process of ‘blessing’ Israel by enabling the evils of occupation, oppression, violence, and the theft of land by settlers, we are also cursing our Palestinian Christian brothers who live in the occupied territories.
• Lastly, does God care less for the innocent Palestinians suffering and death than he does for the Jewish ones? Are they not both made in the image of God? Does God enjoy the blood of innocent children because they’re of Arabic descent?
• Oh, no. We don’t just support Israel in the Middle East. We also strongly support Saudi Arabia and give them weapons and aid too. You know, the country that is responsible for funding and spreading Wahhabist terrorism, from whom came 19 of the 9/11 hijackers, and is currently conducting an illegal war with our munitions and blessing against its neighbor causing untold suffering. Yeah, those people. USA! USA! USA!
• That argument also ignores the fact that I can drive. I can buy just about anything in Nevada and bring it back over the border into So.Cal. There aren’t checkpoints on the interstate. No customs offices searching my car asking me if I have any contraband to declare.
I was technically a PCA Presbyterian when I first started listening. And up until last fall I was still their treasurer.
“There are only two ways to change things: voting or violence…
It seems advantage Republicans on both accounts.
The political affiliations have changed in the last 150 years, but choosing violence did not work out that well for the last group of small government, states’ righters who tried it.
Christian: “Britain played a huge part in it…were they considered a Christian country at the time”.
This is a little off your point. But Britain IS a Christian country. It has an established religion, and their churches’ Bishops sit in the House of Lords. I pointed this out in Sunday school yesterday at the Lutheran church I attend with my family. The conversation got a little too awkward in a discussion about founding fathers, and I pointed out that Britain as a Christian country isn’t doing any better, if not worse, from their perspective. I mean, I like my country Christian, but that hasn’t “saved” Britain.
Lane, please remind me what this is referring to.
On Jason’s bieber. I realize you said that Baltimore, Detroit, and Chicago aren’t liberal utopias. But they have been run by Democrats for decades, so why aren’t they? So I do feel that they are legitimate examples of where the intentions of policies and their results don’t match up. There needs to be explanations for their existence (I’m sure there might be some good ones). However, it is difficult to point fingers at Republican leadership in those examples, because as far as I’m aware there hasn’t been any.
My bad, the formation of Israel. It isn’t really about the original topic. I know surprising little about how the current country of Israel came to be.
Oh. Yeah. I saw a video a few weeks ago of David Cameron saying that Britain was Christian. It’s ironic since we supposedly have a higher percentage of people who identify as Christian. In my mind though, none of that is what makes a country Christian though.
Because a mayor can’t undo an entire political system. Now if there were a living minimum wage, equitable laws, and similar opportunities for education, employment, and healthcare as the members of congress get, then maybe those cities would be liberal utopias. But they don’t. Not even close.
LCMS here. I was a proud Lutheran too man. Insufferably proud. (Imagine that) I converted the same time Jason did which was what drew me to his writing. Which used to be good but is now abunch of liberal bullshit. 🙂
Conversion sucked for me. Still sucks with family. You?
Don’t forget California… The most beautiful state in the Republic, filled with natural resources….. BROKE! We could also look at crappy Sweden (which would be the poorest state in the US if we annexed it… Avg income around 26k US dollars per year) Argentina, Cuba, Greece, Italy, Russia, China, and all the other countries that feel really good but make everyone poor.
I think your terminology is slipping a little in the music discussion. It seems to hinge on how you define “in tune.” If you simply mean putting the right combinations of notes together that make the chords and harmonies that we frequently utilize, then that is a mathematical thing and objective in a sense. There were a couple of the pre-Socratic philosophers who were pretty obsessed with the relationship between music and math.
But which chords and harmonies you frequently utilize and whether or not you think of a particular combination of sounds as being “in tune” is culturally dependent. Think of the heavy use of minor tones in the music of many Eastern countries, for example. Think of the preference for starting on the down beat in some cultures that’s almost always a bit disconcerting to the Western ear. We’re acclimated to music from birth, so seeing these preferences as preferences is really difficult, but there it is.
Also, I grew up in liberal Seattle in a fundie evangelical environment, and Easter eggs and chocolate bunnies were barely tolerated in my church as well.
Right we are the Christian country if it is by percentage. However they are legally a Christian country. For example, when atheists were complaining that atheism isn’t taught in public schools, their education secretary said that the schools must teach that they are Christian country and that they can favor (not give equal time to) some religious beliefs over others.
I convert Easter 2015; just had my first liturgical anniversary. My wife didn’t like the senior pastor of our PCA church too much – it might have been the suggestion of divorce following my talk of conversion. We really like the associate pastor (still do we are vacationing with his family in a few weeks) however he was leaving to plant a church in NC. I was actually fine with staying at our small PCA church following my conversion, but that hardly seemed fair for me to pick the protestant church we went to. So we actually ended going to the local LCMS church. Which I’m pretty happy about, since it feels like a half step toward Catholicism. The liturgy, the higher view of sacraments, even the readings are the same half the time, it is much less confusing for my young kids.
Oh yes, conversion sucked. My wife doesn’t cry everytime Catholicism comes up anymore, so that’s a plus. However, my participation in the Easter Triduum this year did drudge it back up some for a few days.
So are you doing half your Sundays at mass and half at the LCMS? I went through similar struggles with my wife. She was completely in love with our Lutheran Parish and I felt like shit even telling her what was going on. I settled on the “you don’t have to do anything but IM going to be catholic” approach. She got on board a little over one year. Now we fight over Latin masses and novua ordos lol
“So are you doing half your Sundays at mass and half at the LCMS?”
No, although that would be better. I go to services at 2 churches every week, joining my wife and family at the Lutheran church. My wife was going through a very difficult time emotionally at the time of my conversion, only a fraction of which was the conversion itself. So I did do and am currently doing “you don’t have to do anything but IM going to be catholic” thing. My youngest was even Baptized Lutheran.
I bring my kids to Catholic service from time to time. My 3 year old son even came with me to a Latin service, he begged to come with me and that was the last service available to me that day. Surprisingly, he was silent for almost the entire service, all the way up until after I took communion – something he hasn’t done even at the Lutheran service (the reverence is palpable during the Latin mass). He got upset that he didn’t get any bread and he was hungry too.
She got on board a little over one year. Now we fight over Latin masses and novua ordos
That sounds awesome! I hope that she comes around. She said that she would occasionally attend with me; I just haven’t pushed it.
Apologetics worked not at all with my wife. The difference maker was RCIA and just seeing the Church in action. You can’t really understand Catholicism until you live it. She thinks the Latin mass is creepy and forbids us from attending the fssp parish. I’m so happy she wants to be catholic now I don’t even care. The Novus Ordo parish we attend is solid though. 24 hour adoration and the whole 9 yards. Scott Hahn has some good advice on winning over a reluctant spouse. I knew my wife would come around if I pretended like I was cool with her not converting. Women want a united family. Your wife will be with you soon!
“Apologetics worked not at all with my wife.”
Nope. Not. At. All. In hindsight, I should have pulled her in sooner once I started having trouble with Sola Scriptura. It kind of snowballed fast after that, and she wasn’t involved.
The unity thing is what upsets her the most, understandably. She currently just blames me for the disunity, which I get. I was the one who changed. I don’t have a ton of hope for her conversion, but I do have a little hope for us being united moving forward. The best sign is that she will remind me of the hour fast before I go to mass Saturday evening, if she sees me poking around for a snack absentmindedly. And she will keep in mind my days fasting and abstinence while planning – she is pretty awesome.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article45364977.html
We’re doing fine. But feel free to stay in the minimum wage job capital of the US with your under-regulated industries that could randomly explode and destroy your town. 🙂
Dude! It’s crazy, that was the same mistake I made. By the time my wife knew anything I was already waaaaaaay across the Tiber.
Never give up hope for the conversion. You never know. Who would have thought a know it all PCA prosecutor Jason Stellman would become a Catholic agnostic on just a few short years!
Women have an emotional attatchment to their parish. Start bringing your kiddos around more often, get them involved in harmless kid camps and activities. Sneak in through the backdoor 😉
No, still broke.
https://contracostabee.com/california-still-broke/
119 billion in unpaid wages? Lol sounds like your state can’t actually afford the wage it pretends to pay. Its all a dream until its time to default
Ah, yes, the infamous pension bomb which doesn’t really exist if you dig into the economics, but sounds terrifying enough to convince folks that the only way to save the country is to disband unions and make sure teachers get screwed over just as badly as the rest of us do. 🙂
So why do you go there?
I stopped reading here because it sounds like you agree with me. . . .
Yes and no – whether or not a combination of notes has a certain mathematical relation and whether or not they sound good to us are two different things, and I think you’re sort of slipping between the two.
I probably should have specified that by with my family I meant with my parents (and younger siblings) whom I still live with. I’m probably a bit younger than most of y’all. But my main reason for staying is that I like a lot of the people there even if I disagree with them on 90+% of what they believe. Also, when I took membership like 2 1/2 years ago my beliefs were a lot closer to theirs.
Also, resurrection rolls are squickier than resurrection eggs, but it’s all too much for kids, in my book. The church I grew up in loved to yammer on about how precious children are, but then they created an environment that was confusing, coercive, and emotionally unsafe for kids. http://www.lifeway.com/kidsministry/2014/03/31/easter-recipe-resurrection-rolls/
That’s probably a good idea, I was trying to do that anyway.
Lane and Jason, I live not too terribly far from Baltimore, and I have good friends who actually reside in some of the more depressed (economically and otherwise) and drug-ridden parts of the city. One of these friends leaned strongly to the political left for several years, but living in Baltimore seems to be changing at least some of those views. She describes being frustrated by people in self-destructive patterns who appear to have little to no desire to even *try* to move their lives in a positive direction. The most idealistic liberal social and economic policies cannot change a person’s life for the better if that person is continually engaging in self-defeating behavior *and* is committed to not taking personal responsibility for his/her own choices. The reality is, left-wing local governments have ruled Baltimore for decade after decade, and the city has only become more and more dangerous and dysfunctional.
I have another friend who lives in Baltimore. He is a committed leftist politically. He was posting on Facebook after the most recent riots there and complaining about the curfews, which he seemed to see as semi-police-state policies. He didn’t devote one word to calling the people out who were burning down the local pharmacy and making it much harder for elderly people (and everyone else) to get their needed medications.
This is one of the main problems that I have with leftist thinking generally. The reasoning seems to be that if there could only be governmental policies which help poor people more, and if police would only stop being thugs (and I’m *not* defending police who are thugs at all!), then the seemingly entrenched problems in struggling areas would gradually right themselves. However, when liberal policies intended to help poor people have been in practice for 40 to 50 years, and most of the people stay poor, and so many of the families are headed up by single mothers, and many of the families who are *not* headed up by single mothers keep breaking up, and addictions of various kinds only become more widespread and severe… is it not at least somewhat reasonable, after *40 to 50 years* of such patterns becoming increasingly worse under leftist local governmental policies, to strongly consider that the policies may be partially the problem, and that, when conservatives speak about the importance of self-discipline and personal responsibility, they aren’t actually being cold-hearted towards the poor but are *trying* to truly help them?
The cause of poverty is not enough money.
It is not the only problem many of our rural and urban areas face, but it is the one that makes those other problems a lot worse than they would be otherwise.
Conservative politicians can start talking about self-discipline when they stop advocating taxpayer-funded bailouts for reckless banks and other forms of welfare for the rich. As it is now, talk of “self-discipline” usually just a subtle form of racism (it is black people we’re talking about, right? Because when conservatives say these things it always is).
Wow. What a thoughtful response…..
:/
Jason, not all conservative politicians support the kind of thinking that was behind the bank bailouts. Ted Cruz is on record regarding that issue, and you might be surprised by what he has said. I definitely have areas where I disagree with Cruz, but this is not one of them. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ted-cruz-banks-fail
About talk of “self-discipline” for poor people being a subtle form of racism? Well, I talk about it, and I’m a conservative, and I am *not* only referring to people of one ethnicity or another. Lack of self-disciipline is a terrible problem in many, many poor white families. I went to an all-white high school in Alabama and later moved to an area of Maryland populated mainly by poor blacks and Hispanics. I’ve seen self-destructive behavior from poor people of many different ethnicities (and I’ve also seen honorable behavior from many poor people). The British psychiatrist and cultural commentator, Theodore Dalrymple, has documented how large sections of the white underclass in the U.K. are marked by deeply self-destructive patterns of behavior. He obliterates the notion that leftist policies will effectively address the problems of poor people in the U.K. http://www.amazon.com/Life-Bottom-Worldview-Makes-Underclass/dp/1566635055
“The cause of poverty is not enough money”? In some cases, certainly, yes, that is at least one of the reasons for poverty. However, I have been poor and have lived around poor people, and I know that in many cases, poverty is caused and perpetuated by people making, and continuing to make, terrible personal choices. As I mentioned to Jason above, the work of the British psychiatrist, Theodore Dalrymple, on the issue of the underclass in the U.K., is very instructive as to the various causes of poverty. http://www.amazon.com/Life-Bottom-Worldview-Makes-Underclass/dp/1566635055
Yes, the cause of poverty is not enough money.
The hopelessness, despair, learned helplessness and subsequent substance abuse seeking escapism that reinforce poverty are problems that also need to be addressed, but the first priority is to provide people with food security and educational and work opportunities.
He obliterates them? Wow, case closed!
“The cause of poverty is not enough money”
No. Poverty is not caused by not enough money, it is defined by not having enough money. There are reasons/causes for the of state of “not enough money”. Those reasons are both personal (overemphasized by the Right) and societal (overemphasized by the Left).
It seems like people forget all the time that some of the poorest people in the country are white. One of the guys I work with, who is white, was born in the Appalachia of TN. He grew up with no indoor plumbing or electricity. When he was getting a security clearance, the FBI needed to interview his parents. My friend had to draw them maps with directions like “then turn right at the large rock”. The interviewers never found them. That is poor.
Yay, Christopher is back!
Yes, not having money. 🙂
I understand what you and Christopher are getting at, but most often the major contributing factor to being poor is that you were born into it in the wrong part of the country/world and your prospects for getting to a point where you can make enough money to exit poverty on your own are greatly hampered.
(I just called in about this, but I don’t think I did a great job communicating it.)
What do you think about the restroom fight thing that has been happening in NC recently. I’m originally from Charlotte, and my feed has been awash with it over the last week or 2. What problem was the Charlotte ordinance trying to correct (particularly with regard to restroom use by transsexuals)? Was the NC legislature’s push back too sweeping? Do you agree with the private companies pulling out of NC? Do you agree with local governments restricting non-essential public-employee travel to NC – including Seattle?
It seems to me that both sides are dismissing the other side’s issue. I think liberals in Charlotte didn’t do themselves any favors by forcing the restroom/locker room part of the ordinance – but maybe I’m unaware of the “problem” they were “fixing”. I’m not aware of the trouble the trans community had prior to Charlotte deciding to take action. The NC pushback seems to create more problems than before for the trans community. It seems to me that if one “passed” there was no problem before. Maybe there was a problem for transsexual individuals who didn’t pass; a lack of privilege?
On the other side, many women have expressed privacy concerns, especially for locker rooms. I think their concern is legitimate, and shouldn’t be just brushed aside and people made to feel guilty for not wanting biologically male persons in the room where they are undressing. As far as I can tell this is all I’m seeing from the Left: dismal and shaming (calling people bigots for concern over privacy). Seems quite hypocritical of the Left who is typically aghast by both the shaming of others and protecting of people’s feelings. Aren’t they taking away someone else’s “safe space”?
Should the privacy concerns for a very small minority outweigh the privacy concerns of the majority?
If private companies want to make their restrooms unisexual, or introduce 3rd restrooms, or individual restrooms, great go for it. But as it stands no, a lot of businesses’ restrooms and locker rooms aren’t set up to provide appropriate privacy to accommodate both the original ordinance and most people’s privacy concerns together.
@JasonStellman:disqus Looks like the Pope invited Bernie to meet with him at the Vatican next week.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/275583-sanders-to-visit-pope-francis
Saw this. I think my invite got lost in the mail. Frickin Obama.
Weird. I assume Bernie will make you the ambassador to the Vatican.
Surprise, surprise, the Pope didn’t change doctrine with regard to marriage. /s
Obviously, I haven’t read “Amoris Laetitia” yet, but here it is with Bishop Robert Barron’s brief reflection of it. https://thejoyoflove.com/download-exhortation
I like the way he begins:
@Kenneth Winsmann @JasonStellman I would be interested to hear your reaction to the Apostolic exhortation when you get a chance to look into it.
If you look up some of the trans men and women, you couldn’t tell from looking at them that they have the “wrong” plumbing in the basement. In various news stories, there have been pics of trans men who still have their lady bits that look more manly than I do. And their question is do you really want me to use the ladies room? And I think most people would say, of course not.
If women in Charlotte were suddenly being harassed and/or assaulted by dress wearing men in the ladies’ rooms, I might understand the law, but as it is I think this is a real case where the state government is interfering and sticking its nose into a problem that wasn’t there and has created more problems.
I’m not going to read it. O don’t think Pope Francis is a talented theologian, and so won’t be reading his writings unless there is something authoritative and new that I need to know.
The Pope didn’t invite him and won’t be meeting with him. The Vatican invited him
Not too surprised.
I find that I default Ultramontanism when in doubt.
Yeah, I know I should read it, but I’m just not interested. We Catholics have so much extra reading to do as it is….. I’ll take a pass on his marriage musings
How about his musings on the environment?
state government is interfering and sticking its nose into a problem that wasn’t there and has created more problems.
But Charlotte passed the ordinance first. How bad was the original problem?
Do gendered bathrooms even make sense? I think they do.
That’s what made me not want to read anymore unless I had to. Brutal slogging. Whatever happened to nice short definitions and anathemas?!?
I just took some time to read up on the new document. General consensus seems to be its as bad as I anticipated it being.
1. Long
2. Confusing
3. Straining orthodoxy
V2 still rolling! Woohoo
So, you’re not reading his writings because you “don’t think Pope Francis is a talented theologian,” Kenneth? How long have you been a Catholic? It does seem that his writing on the importance of humility, at least, has gone unread by you! 🙂
Christian, I linked to the book in which Dr. Dalrymple presents his case. If you want to look into and actually consider his arguments, you now know where you can find them. It’s not my job to present his book-length case in a combox.
As Lane wrote, the *definition* of poverty is not enough money. The *causes* of poverty, however, are not one (by far) but many. I agree with you that people should have food security and educational and work opportunities. How could I not agree on those things? A very real dilemma/question, though, is, what should be done when the basic food needs are being met, not always with the best food, true, but met, and there are educational and work opportunities, but so many people are so stuck in self-destructive, self-defeating behaviors that they can’t or don’t avail themselves of the opportunities?
“untalented theologian” was the most charitable description I could muster. There are more accurate descriptions, but I edited myself because i didn’t want to offend my neocatholic brothas 🙂
I’m interested to hear the discussion about this as well, but I have seen this as sort of a “CYA” type law. No one is inspecting genitals or birth certificates before admittance into a restroom, but it’s one more thing to come back if a pervert really does something. Sort of like “gun free zone” laws.
Last week I was listening to a story about FDA regulations limiting the amount of arsenic in rice, which on the first hand you’d think “is there a big arsenic problem in rice?” but then you realize, if the arsenic were actually too high there was nothing prior to this reg saying so, and there’d be no liability.
(From what I understand and maybe I’m wrong) there was previously no law restricting use of the wrong restroom, and now there is. No different practically, just a social expectation defined legally, in the event nefarious activity occurs in the future.
Kenneth, wanting to listen to the Pope, and read his writings, and learn from him is not a “neocatholic” thing– it is simply a Catholic thing. I would hope that, given the fact that you are still a convert of not-too-many-years now, you would not have already begun to see yourself as a greater theologian than the Pope. That is, logically speaking, the implication, when you opine that 1. He’s an untalented theologian, and 2. That you are actually being *charitable* in not saying worse things about him– the logical implication is that you, a fairly recently Catholic convert, have more understanding of, and insight into, Catholic theology than the Pope. It would be laughable if it were not terribly sad. Oh, what the heck, it’s *still* laughable! 🙂
Read chapter 8 of his new musings on the family. Read the footnotes too. Ghastly.
Everyone knows Pope Francis is a horrible theologian. Its not a secret. Orthodox catholics are patiently awaiting his death/retirement and keeping our fingers crossed that he doesn’t cause too much damage in the mean time.
Even Karl Keating, the champiion and founder of neocatholicism is unable to keep from grumbling. You can go to Catholic.com and read his great hopes For Cardinal Sara to become Pope right now. Or you could read Fr. Longneckers prolonged plea to Pope Francis. Or Father Z. Or witness Jimmy Akin, who now has a full time job of being the “papal explainer”. His keyboard is on fire explaining away the weekly and monthly embarrassments. Or you could reach out to Cardinal Burke…. Who was banished for orthodoxy. You could listen to Cardinal Pell give his homily on antipopes directed at Francis or else basically read any of Athanasius’s Schneider. The cat is waaaaaaay out of the bag dude.
Pope Francis is a sweet man. He loves people, loves God, and wants to be an example for the world. He is awesome at those things.
When it comes to protecting Catholic doctrine, awesome is not a word that describes him.
You’re missing my point, which is that whether or not he “obliterates” the liberal policies is your opinion, which you seem to think is fact. At least it comes across that way.
Christian, in light of your reply to me, consider this question: do you (and/or Jason) ever state your liberal opinions (about policy, about conservatives, about any number of things) as facts on your podcast? If your answer is no, I would have to strongly disagree, and I don’t think I would be alone. As a longtime listener and supporter of the podcast, I’ve found that to happen more than a few times. Obviously, you’re free to do that— it’s your show. However, it seems to me that it irks you quite a bit whenever a conservative does what you do on the show almost as a reflex. Yes, it’s my *opinion* that Dr. Dalrymple obliterates the notion that leftist policies can effectively address the problems of poor people in the U.K. Yes, I stated it as fact. It’s a rhetorical device that people often use when they have a passionately held opinion that they believe to be borne out by good evidence. It probably won’t be the last time that I state a strongly held opinion as fact. I won’t even be surprised if you do it again too! 🙂
Nope, Kenneth, everyone does not “agree that Pope Francis is a horrible theologian.” The visiting priest at my parish this morning belongs to a strongly traditional order of priests, and virtually his entire homily was devoted to how the Pope’s new Apostolic Exhortation explains and upholds the historic, consistent teachings of the Church. This priest is not a “neocatholic”– not at all. Neither is Father Dwight Longenecker. There are many, many others who are also still listening to, and learning from, the Pope. It’s kind of a Catholic thing to do. 🙂
As for Cardinal Burke being “banished for orthodoxy,” the Cardinal himself doesn’t seem to view the situation in the same light. Father Z. and the Rorate Caeli blog ain’t the Pope, although you seem to prefer listening to them *over* the Pope. The loss is yours, my fellow Catholic convert!
Are you referring to the podcast where we constantly say that it’s all our opinions and that our opinions change and we don’t stand behind anything we say? LOL
Also, it is nice to see you back here, Christopher. Hope you’re doing well.
Yes, LOL, I’m referring to the podcast in which you and Jason “constantly say that it’s all our opinions and that our opinions change and we don’t stand behind anything we say,” and then regularly, promptly, go on to state those opinions as facts quite often during said podcast! 🙂
Thanks for the kind words, Christian. I’m doing pretty well. Could be much better, at times, but also could be much worse, all of the time. Hope you’re doing well too!
Not sure you’re understanding the point of qualifying (or disqualifying in our case) something before it’s said.
Don’t be foolish Christopher. You really believe Pope Francis called this synod to “explain and uphold the consistent teaching of the Church”? Why does it take a Synod and over 200 pages to explain something already perfectly stated in the catechism? It is obvious to everyone that this was an attempt to produce a turning point in Catholic doctrine. One that was thwarted by outraged conservatives despite every attempt by Pope Francis to counter their views. So we settled for another V2 time bomb. More double truth ambiguities that inch closer to heretical interpretations but still sooth neocatholics to sleep by *possibly* not changing anything. Its amazing to me that people can’t see this for what it is….
And I’m pretty sure we have all been more catholic than the pope at some point. How many examples through history would you like?
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/04/more-catholic-than-pope.html?m=1
Here is the time bomb….
For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in certain “irregular” situations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the gospel are in any way being compromised.
The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations.
Hence it can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.
More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values,” or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin. . . .
The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly mentions these factors: “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors” (CCC 1735).
In another paragraph, the Catechism refers once again to circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility, and mentions at length “affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability” (CCC 2352).
For this reason, a negative judgment about an objective situation does not imply a judgment about the imputability or culpability of the person involved. (AL 301-302).
Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin—which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such—a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end (AL 305).
At this point the text contains a footnote that states:
In certain cases, this [i.e., the Church’s help toward him growing in grace and charity] can include the help of the sacraments.
Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038).
I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039) (AL footnote 351).
Is it not painfully obvious?
@boywonder23k:disqus did you see Cardinal Burke’s article on the apostolic exhortation?
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/amoris-laetitia-and-the-constant-teaching-and-practice-of-the-church/
No, I hadn’t, but thanks for the link. The document has no entered the “spin room” which is similar to what happens after Presidential debates. Cardinal Kasper and others will herald it as a revolution while conservatives will say it represents nothing new and needs to be interpreted just so. We have 60 years of this same old schtik which is why I prefer to be unplugged. If nothing “new” is happening then why all the drama?
The best question to ask today is this:
Am I still free to practice and believe the faith as it was practiced and believed in the 1930s? If I never read a word of V2, B16, JP2, or Pope Francis, would I be missing something integral? Obviously the Latin mass is a bit different. But other than that is there something new that I MUST believe or believe differently?
Obviously the answer to this question is no. But it makes liberals hair catch fire. The question shines a bright hot light on their true intentions.
Kenneth, be careful while reading this piece by Cardinal Burke on the Apostolic Exhortation, or next, you’ll be saying that he, too, is a post-Vatican II neocatholic liberal, lol! http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/amoris-laetitia-and-the-constant-teaching-and-practice-of-the-church/
I agree with everything Cardinal Burke wrote….. He isn’t defending the popes aweful writing. He is saying the “interpretive key” (we have never needed those before 1960) is to try and read the Pope in light of the constant teaching of the Church. And this is POSSIBLE. As it is POSSIBLE with certain other documents. But it’s just really really damn tricky. Which is why I would rather not waste my time.
Don’t confuse the spin room with glowing approval.
If you’re a fan of mental jumping jacks and gratuitous distinctions with layers of semantics more power to ya. I prefer reading talented theologians where I don’t need an “interpretive key” to read their writings just right to get something edifying
Thanks for enlightening me about Cardinal Burke being in the “spin room,” Kenneth! Somehow, I sense that he would disagree with you on that point, but oh well! 🙂
I ike talented theologians too. Pope Francis is one of them. Even if he *weren’t* a particularly gifted theologian though, I still wouldn’t be publicly slandering him in ways that communicate a doubt as to his faithfulness to Catholic teaching. He knows the teachings of the Church very well and is defending them in this newly released document. The fact that he’s not doing so to *your* satisfaction is not any kind of negative comment on his theological acumen or faithfulness as a teacher.
Yep, Christian, I’m understanding the point of you and Jason (dis)qualifying what you say before you say it. However, when you on to *qualify those (dis)qualifications* by repeatedly stating your opinions as facts during the podcast, you’re not being consistent in saying that you don’t stand behind what you say, lol! Unless you are willing to say that everything you and Jason say on the podcast is just self-contradictory, often-incoherent gibberish– in which case I will be able to agree with you at least half of the time! 🙂 (It is funny though, so I keep listening!)
The fact that he’s not doing so to *your* satisfaction is not any kind of negative comment on his theological acumen or faithfulness as a teacher.
That’s fine! Ha, I’m not trying to convince others. Lane asked and I gave my honest response. I think he is a great happy man and a really crappy defender of doctrine. Just look at what you wrote
1. Francis is a great theologian
2. This great theologian just wrote a letter defending traditional catholic teaching
Yet, somehow….
3. Orthodox catholics are furiously writing about “interpretive keys” and downplaying the authority of the letter in an attempt to curve the media, journalists, and Cardinal Kasper’s of the world claiming victorious revolution within the Church. Why all the confusion?!? Because either 1 or 2 ain’t so.
You keep illustrating in your responses that you don’t understand the point of qualifying your statements before you make them.
Either way, whether Dalrymple “obliterates” the effectiveness of liberal policies is simply your opinion. That was my point. You are welcome to comment on our podcasts the same thing if you feel you need to. We’ll gladly say, “Yes, of course it’s opinion,” instead of throwing shit back in your face.
You can have the last word but I’m not interested in wasting more time on this.
If one is going to consistently state one’s opinions as fact, then It makes no logical sense to *also* state that one doesn’t stand behind anything that one says. It’s an exercise in absurdity. This is not throwing shit in your or Jason’s face. It’s a matter of basic logic.
Logic is for nerds.
I resemble that remark! 🙂
Fr. Harrison complaining that Pope Francis isn’t defending Church doctrine to his satisfaction….. Sounding a lot like me after the fact. Is he reading this thread?
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/priest-pope-francis-pastoral-revolution-goes-against-2000-years-of-traditio
Life Site News has been suffering from “more Catholic than the Pope” syndrome for quite some time now regarding Francis. It has been sad to see that from them. In a similar vein, from my past experience, you will likely describe almost *any* priest who defends the Pope as being a “neocatholic” who engages in Papal “spin” (such as Fr. Dwight Longenecker and Cardinal Burke?), so I won’t spend time trying to persuade you otherwise.
I wanted to know what you thought of Fr. Harrison. Not the website that posted his thoughts.
Kenneth, I’m not thrilled when *any* person– priest, layman, media pundit, etc.– makes claims about the Pope and his teaching that are mistaken. Now, the claims may well be *honestly* mistaken. I would hope that they are. In any case, Pope Francis did not say that there are changes to Catholic doctrine in AL. The document itself states the exact opposite. How are you doing on the reading of AL? http://www.patheos.com/blogs/scottericalt/life-site-news-gets-a-pope-story-wrong-again/?ref_widget=gr_trending&ref_blog=grails&ref_post=catholic
We have a video tape of Pope Francis saying there are changes! Watch the video and tell me he means something different.
https://youtu.be/MPlp-vRU624
He also recommends the interpretion of a progressive that calls the document a “development of doctrine”. How are you not being note catholic than the pope by insisting that he doesn’t actually mean what he says?
Kenneth, the “development of doctrine” concept is a standard part of Catholic teaching. Development of doctrine is very far from a contradictory, heretical *change* in doctrine.
In any event, possible changes in discipline (i.e. disciplines being the practical application of doctrines), in certain cases, are *not* changes in doctrine.