Habemus exemplum perfectum de peccato liturgiae Concilii II. Peccatum liturgicae = absenstia mysterii tremendi et fascinantis >>> otium - tedium - acedia (?) "Habemus Papam!" (SIC!)

"Es kommt daher, daß durch [Andacht] das Gefühl des Mysteriums, des 'Ganzanderen' geweckt wird und an sie sich haftet. Das Lateinisch in der Messe, das der naive Katholik durchaus nicht als ein notwendiges Übel, sondern als besonders heilig empfindet (...). Hierher gehört auch das halb Offenbare, halb Verborgene im Kultus von Messe griechischer Liturgie und so vielen anderen Liturgien". Rudolf Otto (lutherischer Pastor), Das Heilige (1917). Was Otto so phämenologisch erfolgreich beschrieben hat, gilt nicht für viele Erscheinungsformen vom Novus Ordo, genau wie im Video zu sehen ist. Was der Liturgiereform hervorragend gelungen ist, ist das Heilige durch die neue liturgische Form aus der Messe zu verbannen. J'accuse!

Since this entry will soon disappear, I will only make a limited comment. I cannot speak about Latin America and I do not fully know what the Pope means by "right-wing". But, taking the Pope at his words, he is wrong! Yes. dead (for many Jews) wrong! The greatest anti-Jewish movement is found in Islam. The scholar Bostrom has written a 1000 page book on the historical repression of Jews from day one of Islam. Turn to Memri.tv or Palestinian Watch and spend time, lots of time, seeking out comments by Islamists for the Allah called for liquitation of the "pigs", i.e., Jews. This includes Abbas of the PA which again united with the Jew-hating Hamas. Then let us not forget the Holocaust denying Iran. The error of the Pope might be minor if not humorous, except that he managed to overlook a historically ongoing movement that is very anti-Jewish, leathal so. This blindness, intended or invinicible ignorance, is of deadly danger to Jews. The Pope should stick to theology and leave other areas alone.

Look up Caroline Glick in Jerusalem Post or the articles in FrontPage on the Jew haters (always on the left, without exception) or PJ Media and the Jewish authors there who find danger from the LEFT and not the right. Hitler was a nationalist, yes, but also a type of socialist, yes. The anti-Jewsih tradition used by the man goes back to centuries of Christian prejudice against Jews. One reason some Jews reacted negatively to the Pope in Israel as many see the Catholic Church as the historical persecutor number one.
I finish with tale of obvious "right-wing" hate of Jews: Stalin in his last days was cared for by the best Russian doctors, no? NO! He had been, but they were Jews and he was in the process of a progrom against Jews. The Jewsih doctors had been eliminated and incompetents had replaced them. Maybe that cost Stalin his life. And we all know, along with Pope Francis, that Stalin was a leading "right-winger". SIC!

@Dr Stuart Reiss, in case you are not aware of the fact: It is the foreign policy objective of the US State Department (Kerry, H. Clinton, Obama) to use foreign policy means to spread homosexuaism in every country. You, perhaps, know that the US has stopped most foreign aid to Nigeria because Nigeria has a law against or limiting homosexuaity. Most "rich" nations (e.g., Germany where I live) already respect "homosexual rights". It is the poor countries of the world that are open to US pressure. Michael Voris of The Vortex revealed some years back that the same pressure was put on The Philippines -- a country withan overwhelming Catholic population -- and against the protest of the bishops. The gov. gave in and the first act of the "gay" ambassodor was to organize a homosexual "bash! at the US Embassy. His final words to the assorted group was something like "Love each other, that is what counts". All know what "love" means. So, Dr. Reiss, one does not have to imagine anything, that is official US policy.

One can easily miss the seriousness here. If one considers that de essentia all humans are seeking God, i.e., naturally religious, then it is easy to conclude that all paths lead to God, some ways, perphaps, better than others, e.g., Catholicism is better than Anglicism and Shamanism, etc.. But, all ways are valid. This is modernism. The strict validity or not of Anglican priests are really secondary. Who is the Pope to judge? Indifferentism is built into modernism.

One criticism of the German Catholic Church in the 1930s was that it did not forcibly enough oppose the Nazis on the Jewish question. It did do so on the liquidation of retarded persons, indeed, back Hitler down a bit. Why mention this? One can (and pardon my sarcasm here) view the elimination of Jews as a sort of delayed post partem abortion. The willful taking of life on innocents, is murder. Very serious! I see a parellel for all Christian (all, not just Catholic) re Obama's mandate.

Let us say that the courts uphold the mandate. Then what. Obedience or ?. The insufficient resistance to a gov. of coming mass murder (during the 1930s the massive killing of Jews had not yet got under way) probably reflects upon the German Church of that time (I am not forgetting the tryranncial nature of the Gestapo apparatus and that is different from the US of today). What is to be done? was the title of a short, but criticial work by Lenin. Well, it seems to be that the title is valid for pro-lifers of today. If the legal forcing of pro-lifers, particularly an institution like the Catholic Church, becomes entrenched, it will, I predict, become a part of the accepted cultural values that constitute Pope Benedict's "culture of death". This is a sociological thesis. You know: Get a man on his knees and he will learn to pray. Get a culture on accepting Churches forced to support infanticide and it will become therapy. What is to be done--DONE, not just verbally expressed? Does anyone have an answer for me?

I am a very educated person. Off and on I have spent a bit more than 17 years as a student at universities in 4 countries collecting my doctoral medals. I am skandalized!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If Boston College is going to go "queer", fine, than do it and grant me clarity. Since Vat II, but really exponentialized by Bishops and prelates, including the current Pope, I find myself battered by a bit or a lot unorthodoxy, a bit or, well, in THIS or THAT point some orthodoxy. Effectively I am experiencing the Church in its institutions, prelates, priests, nuns, lay people and whatever, as a whirling storm of hither and thither, i.e., as combining so many vectoral differences as to entail contradiction. As the psychologist Ernest Becker noted, a fundamental feature of mental disturbance is "contradiction", i.e. reality does not hold together. All this has a disquieting effect upon me, not at all healthy for a mind seeking order, clarity and coherence. And also a continuation of the past in the present pointing to the future. When will this cease? I do not thrive in such horrendous contradiction.

The contribution lists a list of things of modesty, etc. done by Pope Francis, things really fine in front of the whole wide world. My judgment of the man filling the role of the Pope is that Mr. Bergoglio is a narcisstic cynosure. "I am in God's hands" can be and is said just about by everyone. If Pope Francis survives his lax security, then, well people, it is God that is protecting him while he tells everyone that he loves rgwb in front of the whole wide world. Francis' defying the dangers of death is but one more marvelous feature for the whole world to see. I see it all as hubris!

"Irregardless of what the doctor holds to be moral, if the state needs the elimination of Jews for the good of the "Volk", then the doctor must inject whatever kills". Tusk, a Pole and a citizen of a country that has suffered so much from Nazism, has just adopted the "categorical imperative" of the Nazi concentration camps. It is the law, so do it. Killing a ante partem human, or killig a post partem human are two sides of the same moral coin, rejecting conscience for the "law" of the sate. Heil Tusk!

I suggest a couple of almost contradictory suggestions:

1. Perhaps the libertarian side of conservatism is ascending. What do I mean? Libertarians tend (not all) to follow the maxism: If it does not hurt any one, all is allowed (in private at least). Applied to pansexualism (= all forms of sexual activity are socially permissable), this means a shift from "conservative" family values to "libertarian" (atomistic) individual values. Thus homosexuality or the LGBT movement is no longer a question of interest as it is a "private" matter.

2. The affirmative action program of the LGBT movement with its aggressivity has freighten the conservatives into acquiesence.

I have heard a couple of conservatives (e.g., an ex-patriot Englander at NR) simply say that he has no problem with homosexual marriage, though he does understand that some people do.

I am just guessing. If the conservative movement goes silent on the LGBT issue, resistance will become difficult, limited to religious oriented journals, papers, blogs, etc. of no wide circulation to object. If that analysis is correct (and I hope not), things will change rapidly. Once LGBT types become accepted into the mainstream conservative press into the Republican Party, those who object will become outcasts.

I stress again that I am only fishing about for an explanation. I am confounded.

Ein bißchen Ironie dazu: "Die Wahrheit ist, daß der Relativismus gültig ist". Dieser Satz ist die Gundlage fürs postmoderne Denken. Mit anderen Worten: "Political Correctness" beruht auf einer (implizit) behaupteten Wahrheit. Obgleich das logisch ein evidenter Widerspruch ist, gesellschaftlich ist es eine Art "kategorischer Imperativ", der Anderkennung, sogar mit der Gewalt des Gesetzes, verlangt und velangen muß, weil wichtige "Wahrheit" wahrlich so ist. Was alles meines Erachtens verlangt werden wird, ist schon lange nocht nicht erreicht worden.

If one holds that "truth" does, indeed, entail cognitive claims, then really profound discussions between orthodox Jews and Catholics (from orthodox to whatever is playing pope) are senseless or they become simply a mutual informative statement of "The truth is ...", which is not a discussion. I appreciate and applaud the Chief Rabbi. His sense for the priority of truth is a welcome breath of air after the all-inclusive indiffwrentism of Pope Francis. The probable difference between the two is: the Rabbi is interested in the salvation of his people, whereas the Pope is interested in saving the world, i.e., secular goals.

Talks about cohabitation problems in modern society between different religions are certainly sensible. What the Pope pulled off in the Vatican garden was a show, a well televized and orchestrated show, and as usual with his fine cynosure feeling for matter, with Francis in the center of the spolight for the whole world to see and admire. Effectively Abbas prayed for his position (not for "peace" less than his position) and Peres, well, he repeated empty words. As David Goldman, a Modern Orthodox Jew, has noted, Peres does not pray, i.e,., he is a secular Jew (just like any secular neighbor anyplace). What looked like a prayer session, was simply a trade off of empty words, BUT with the (in my opinion, narcisstic) Pope Francis showing himself off to the whole wide world. That is called PR promotion.

Das erste Prinzip für die Aussenpolitik von Amerika (oder irgendeinem Land), ist, so behaupte ich, dazu zu sehen, daß das Land überlebt und gedeiht. Aussenpolitik ist keine Demokratie. Von meinem Standpunkt hat Europa, auch Deutschland, Amerika durch Nato ausgebeutet, besonders geldlich. Ich will Nato abschaffen. Dennoch kann ich die Ausbeutung verstehen. Meines Erachtens (und ich bin nicht allein) ist mein erstes Prinzip nicht das Ziel von Obama gewesen. Wer ist Amerika, ich oder Obama? Das ist keine dumme Frage. Warum? Weil ich sooft hier in Deutschland (und besonders in Rußland, vgl. RT tv) pauschale Kritik höre, gerichtet gegen DIE Amerikaner, als ob dieses "die" als Wesen, Entität, Seiendes, uws. existiere. Die Komplexität der amerikanischen Politik(en) kommt außer Sicht und irrefühende Verallgemeinerungen werden gefällt, die nur Vorurteile bilden. Sie wissen sicher, daß DER Deutsche jemand ist, der Lederhosen trägt, zuviel Bier trinkt und dauerhaft das Oktoberfest genießt. Dumme Sache, nein? So ein Bild existiert in der "pop"-Kultur Amerikas. Und die Darstellung von Grunwald scheint mir ebenso "dumm" zu sein. Was mich stört, ist nicht Kritik, sondern Kritik, die es mir nicht erlaubt, frei von geladenen Adjektiven zu denken. Und hier ist Grunwald gescheitert.

@Nujaa, ich vermute, daß wir verschiedener politischen Meinung sind. Wunderbar! Ich akzeptiere und begrüße das. Leider kann ich mich nicht mit einem Dialog abfinden, wo ich von vorneherein terminologisch als "Räuber" abgestuft bin. Ein Gespräch ist unter solchen Umständen nicht möglich. Mein Problem mit dem Buch besteht nicht darin, daß erhebliche Kritik ausgeübt wird, sondern darin, daß meine Seite zur gehirnwäschenden Instanz
gestempelt wird. Dadurch verliert das Buch an Belang. Von meinem Standpunkt sollte eine Demokratie-Kritik an der Tagesordnung sein.

Der Autor ist ein Progandist ersten Ranges. Er will uns zeigen, wie wir einer Gehinrwäsche unterzogen werden, damit wir angeblich "objektive" denken können. Was ist der Ausgangpunkt für die grunwaldische Zermürbung der westlichen Demokratien? "Plünderungskriefe" in Irak, Lybian, Afghanistan, etc. Leider, muß ich als Amerikaner sagen, haben die obengenannten Kriefe die USA Mulitimultimilliarden Dollars gekostet und das Land nicht im geringsten bereichert, und ich vergesse nicht, wieviele Soldaten gestorben sind. "Räuber-Demokratien"??????

Die Adjektive, die angewendet wurden, um vorgebefestigte (vor)Werturteile als Teil einer Gehirnwäsche zu verkaufen, sind verblüfflend. Die Terminoloige ist schrecklich geladen. Ich könnte in Rußland leben, weil ich einige Werturteile von dem Olgarchen Putin akzeptiere. Gleichzeitig halte es irre, nicht zu verstehen, daß Putin eine Art Diktator ist. Assad?? Die Böseartigkeit von Assad ist kein Witz, keine Lüge. Was zu tun? ist eine andere Sache. Die Führer von Iran sind nicht "irre", sondern moralische Monstren, die es klar gemacht haben, was sie mit Israel und Juden tun wollen.

Es ist wirklich schade, daß so ein eingefleischter Hasser von Amerika und Europa-Demokratien das Buch geschrieben hat. Warum? Weil Grunwald, trotz unkontrollierter Beleidigungen, doch eine wahre Problematik angeprangert hat. Ich selbst bin bereit, die "Demorkatie" (nicht "Republik") als irreführende Regierungsform zu kritizieren. Aber ich finde es als voll von "bad taste" (wie die Engländer sagen), so einen Propagandisten bei Gloria.tv zu verkaufen. Aber Redefreiheit gilt noch unter uns Räubern. Leider hat Grunwald es mit seiner Wut leicht gemacht, vernichtende Repliken zu machen. Wahrscheinlich wird kaum jemand ihn ernst nehmen. Das Gute in dem Thema wird leider bald genug im Mühleimer der Geschichte verschwinden. Ich möchte gerne eine intellecktuell ausgeführte Kritik lesen, anstatt mich vor einer neuen Gehirnwäsche zu befinden.

Osteen's theology is not really the Pope's (I hope!). It is more in line with theologies of "think postive" and life will make you happy. Maybe the Pope can see the "I am happy"-feeling as an literal appearance of the Holy Ghost in other "brother" religions. Osteen's interpretation of his meeting, from the clip, was that the Pope wants "to take everbody in" and that "unity" is the main thing (a unity which evidently does not covert anyone and is not all too concerned with truth), rather imparts to him "divine inspiration" for his coming megachurch - Yankee-Stadium "event". Imitating megachurch-"Holy Ghost"-whooping it up with its "Be happy" message (and if your not you are not a true Christian) and pentecostal-like emotionality as liturgy is, perhaps, the future of the Catholic Church as the Pope sets out to realize "all inclusive unity", for which "rigid" dogma is out of place. Be warned!!

The reporting on the Osteen "happening" with the Pope does lend some credence to the thesis that the Pope is pushing for some sort of world church or, at least, a church sharing the same mutual "Holy-Ghost"-pentecostal feelings, a church of "happenings", but not of dogmatic truth.

All that is needed is a "Rainbow Church" and, given the Pope's inclination to wear a Rainbow bracelet, and, well, the homosexual act in its ecstacy might be viewed as just another type exprience-happenings. I am becoming cynical, that is true. My cynicism stands in a proportional function of the papal cynosure's all inclusiveness, which results in reducing difference of religious doctrines to mere "traditions" which are but different ways of enabling "happenings".

@Knights4Christ, you are correct in a humorous way, i.e., "the carnival has just begun". Alas, humor is lacking in me at the moment. In a two-fold literal way the "carnival" is on. 1. There are carnival-like masses. See "A comparison of Catholic and Orthodox liturgies" (or some similar title) in YouTube and you will convince yourself of the literal nature of a "carnival" mass (not to mention aspects of the Mass in Rio). One also has a contrast between a Mass with holiness of liturgy (Russian Orthodox) and a mess of quasi-mockery (Carnival Catholicism). 2. At the moment, the "right of homosexual marriage" is the wedge "cause celebre " for a much more broad "fundamental change" of SEXuality's norms. Implicit in the "rainbow" imagery is pansexuality, i.e., any form of consenting sex (including, according to some "Greens" here in Germany, with kids in a pre-puberty phase) is acceptable and should be affirmed. Pansexuality is conceptually more abstract and, hence, is better suited as a general principle, relative to which the sexual forms of the "downtrodden", the "losers", the victims of "inequality" of society (those that tickle the heart of Pope Francis) can be subsumed and affirmed as normatively valid.

For awhile I was fixated on that bracelot, "aesthetically" allowing the rainbow color to penetrate my mind so as to await the effects. After a point the aesthetics disappeared and a harsh disgusting reality engulfed me. I simply find it intellectually difficult not to interpret the wearing of such a pansexual trinket (and one cheaply made = manifestation of Pope's character) as a symbolic hint by the Pope as to his view. And this filled me with a sickening feeling of horror/disgust. That leaves me with the question I asked below, namely: What is to be done? Do we just make our complaints while watching the "carnival"? I have no answer. But this time the Pope has infringed upon my principled view of sexuality, which means sociality, and I find that a time is coming where the current papacy simply "turns me off". I just used quotation marks so as to leave things vague as I am not sure of what was meant.

Indeed, it looks like a cheaply made pro-homosexuality bracelet. I have a hard time in context of today NOT to interpret papal bad taste as more, i.e., as a symbolic statement, and in this case a symbolic affirmantion of the "downtrodden" or "losers" (categories of the Pope), i.e., the socially not so acceptable homosexuality as the ideology of a group of losers. Everything about this Pope speaks of an affirmation of and desire to realize on a religious plain modernity as it is evolving, met with an adjustment of the Church thereto, its symbols (or lack thereof), its causes (the econoically and not spiritually poor), it economic proto-marxism (the Pope's statement on "inquality" matches Marx' discussion, and "inequality" is at the heart of Marxism), etc.

I turned to the Spanish original and read some more from the good Friars. What I find there is what I find repeatedly in Gloria.tv, namely complaints, complaints and then some more (some coming from me). To borrow a term from Lenin: What is to be done? Michael Voris remains intentionally blind to the disreputable acts and words of the Pope (only citing the Pope when he sides with Voris' views). Nevertheless, he is promoting and leading in a way a revolt against the Bishops of the US (who are casting him aside). At least the man has engaged the enemy. An engagement against the Pope? How? To be pessimistic (I've been to long in Germany philosophy and pessimism is fun), I suspect that we will go on complaining about the loss of this and that until there is noting more to lose--the Pope have banned it all in his renovated or (to quote another known firgure) in his "fundamentally changed" Church. I turn on Gloria and some other sources, and get my daily double or triple or more doses of slaps in my theological face. It is becoming unhealthy. So, what is to be done?

Suggestions anyone?

This is a serious charge, not just a question. In other words, the answer suggested by the discussion of the article was or is "Yes, he is". The opening of the Church is evident in Pope JP II and even in Benedict. The speech of JP II in India led me to think that Ghandi, not Jesus, was the Pope's model. What I am hinting at is that there are indicators that a widening of Catholicism along with a necessary diminishing of distinguishing features has been going on for a long time. And it not unusual to read that this opening goes back to Vat II.

There are indications, but then there are perfectly orthodox pronouncements of the Pope. This leads me to request massive evidence for the thesis suggested. It is one thing to oppose the Pope because he does not let Latin Masses flourish; it is another thing to accuse the Pope of betraying the Church by emptying it of its doctrinal content. I have my inklings, but I want to read massive evidence before such a drastic contention is held for true. (If true, what should the believer do?) Otherwise, we have a posting in Gloria.tv that is good for shocking, though of little value in content.