Ruari McCallion Tries to Make Allowances for my English

1) New blog on the kid : Bergoglio Shows He Doesn't Get Christianity ... or Gnosticism, 2) HGL's F.B. writings : Bergoglio NOT Getting Gnosticism, Discussion on FB, 3) Ruari McCallion Tries to Make Allowances for my English, 4) Bergoglio misuses "Fundamentalism" too ....

Ruari McCallion

The intention of my original post was to encourage people to read the whole report, not just the headline. Thus the...obscure question.

The emergence of some esoteric positions and ideas was not intentional but may also be described as...interesting.

With regard to Gnostocism, whatever characteristics it may appear to share with other ideas, philosophies or heresies, it has an important distinguishing feature: "gnosis", from the Greek "to know".

Gnostics claim to possess a higher knowledge, not from the Bible, but acquired on some mystical higher plain of existence. Gnostics see themselves as a privileged class elevated above everybody else by their higher, deeper knowledge of God.

It was something addressed by St Paul, in 1 Corinthians 1:18-24, verse 23 in particular. "We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and a folly to Gentiles". It is mentioned that the simplicity of the message - and the absence of degrees of initiation, a hierarchy of knowledge - its very transparency and absence of 'mystery' made the Greeks laugh in derision. Christianity breaks through the esoteric Middle East "mystery" religions; Gnosticism is a reversion to them.

But that wasn't the point of the post. Ah, well. Never mind, eh?

Hans Georg Lundahl

"Gnostics claim to possess a higher knowledge, not from the Bible, but acquired on some mystical higher plain of existence. Gnostics see themselves as a privileged class elevated above everybody else by their higher, deeper knowledge of God."

Exactly, and that is sth quite other than claiming the common Catholic knowledge from Bible and Tradition, but simply not living it.

THANK YOU!

Ruari McCallion

You're welcome, Hans-Georg.

Glad you came round to the conventional way of thinking. Next step is to recognise the Bishop of Rome, duly elected by eligible Cardinals in Conclave, as the Pope. The sole and only Pope.

Hans Georg Lundahl

What do YOU mean by me "coming round to" conventional way of thinking?

It is Bergoglio who needs to come round to it.

Ruari McCallion

Understanding what Gnosticism is.

Anyway, one step at a time. Next challenge is clearly to achieve understanding that a reporter's aside is not necessarily what the person reports on actually said. That appears to be an ongoing and difficult challenge.

Hans Georg Lundahl

I was never NOT* understanding what Gnosticism is.

"Next challenge is clearly to achieve understanding that a reporter's aside"

It was not an ASIDE, it was a SUMMARY.

" is not necessarily what the person reports on actually said."

Not necessarily, especially not if the reporter is a bungler.

What about giving me ANY evidence this one is, or what about giving me ANY report saying Bergoglio actually said sth totally different and sensible, like NOT identifying Gnosticism with the spirituality of hearing but not doing, or of intellectual orthodoxy without love?

Ruari McCallion

Hans, I am beginning to suspect that English isn't your first language and, as a result, you are not completely au fait with it. Fair enough, I shall make allowances.

For your part, you could maybe work on the basis that English is my first language, I make my living writing it and I do know what I am talking about.

You're wrong and I'm getting rather bored with your obstinate refusal to countenance the possibility. I hope that's clear.

Hans Georg Lundahl

I need no allowances about English. Though it is in fact only my third language.

YOU need allowances for either ignorance about early para-Christian sects OR superdevotion to Bergoglio OR both.

And I am trying to make my living from use of English too**, and I am FED UP with people like you recirculating a rumour I need allowances for it. Or for my French which is my fourth language.

Gnosticism does involve shunning matter and its slight difference from Manichaeanism is a shade in the reason for this shunning. To Manichaeans, matter was created by an EVIL principle, to Gnostics by an imperfect one.

When the reporter defined outside the direct quote what Gnosticism is, he was certainly not wrong about the definition, and nearly as certainly he was referring to what the so called Pope had said.

In his next words he VERY certainly was referring to the so called Pope's words.

Since he said [Bergoglio being who he meant] was identifying this with such and such a spiritual stance.

And my beef is with Bergoglio doing this idiotic identification.

Do you still think that it is my English which is the problem between us?

As to "I make my living writing it", I would like to correct the R McC on my blog to your name as a writer. I do not find your name here on the wiki.

Is this link appropriate?

TheManufacturer : Articles by Ruari McCallion
http://www.themanufacturer.com/author/ruari-mccallion/

Because, if it is, I looked through the titles, that is confirmation of Gnosticism, Manichaeism, Pelagianism, etc. being, if not outside your normal ken, at least outside your normal writing habits, at least on that publication.

Correct me if I am wrong on that one.

And same goes for subtle distinctions on what is a reporter's own words entirely and where he is referring to what someone else said on some occasion.

As said, anyone needing allowances for anything would be you, not me, and on subject, not on English.

"Ruari McCallion writes regularly for business as well as manufacturing magazines"

taken from google search under this link:

Freelance journalist Focus with Ruari McCallion
Written by: Vanessa McGreevy Date: 07/05/2009
http://www.featuresexec.com/bulletin/interview_article.php?id=8532#.VknutqObdnU

Same story as with other link.

On

other subthread of this thread:

GG

"Catholicism can and must change".

This statement, in and of itself, is heresy. The Faith does not change.

Ruari McCallion

Did you read the whole report, GG?

Did you read the other two reports of the same speech I have posted?

Hans Georg Lundahl

I'd like to see the other reports, I have not read them.

And I'd like to know where you posted them.

Even if English is only my third language, I can tell that "the other two reports of the same speech I have posted" means that you posted two other reports, and it seems not to have been on this thread, as per my scrutiny of it.

Ruari McCallion

It was after this one and obviously before today, Hans-Georg.

If you use the search function for this group (top right of the page) and search for my name, you will find one report posted about seven minutes after this one and another about 4 1/2 hours later.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oh, wonderful, thank you!

I will have a look!

I take it you mean these two:

VaticanInsider : There is no “Bergoglian plan” at play. In Italy too, all that is needed is the Gospel
11/10/2015 by Gianni Valente
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/francesco-firenze-44574/

RT : Church should be humble, not clinging to power & money – Pope Francis
Published time: 10 Nov, 2015 23:27
Edited time: 11 Nov, 2015 00:31
https://www.rt.com/news/321516-church-humble-pope-power/

It is funny, the RT link speaks about the speech in Florence but actually links to a much earlier speech to bishops of Brazil in 2013, right now.

Here it is:

APOSTOLIC JOURNEY TO RIO DE JANEIRO
ON THE OCCASION OF THE XXVIII WORLD YOUTH DAY
https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2013/july/documents/papa-francesco_20130727_gmg-episcopato-brasile.html

Also, RT gives a summary - unless you prefer to call it an aside, which goes like this:

// Pope Francis delivered the speech in Florence insisting the Catholic Church should have nothing to do with power, prestige and economic benefits. Instead it should be focusing on reaching out to people, especially those most in need. //

Here Bergoglio sounds, himself, Manichaean or Gnostic. Or at best Waldensian.

Unless you prefer to say that here too the reporter is a bungler.

Nevertheless, I found the speech on Vatican site, and its reference to Evangelii Gaudium 94.

// A second temptation to defeat is that of gnosticism. This leads to trusting in logical and clear reasoning, which nonetheless loses the tenderness of a brother’s flesh. The attraction of gnosticism is that of “a purely subjective faith whose only interest is a certain experience or a set of ideas and bits of information which are meant to console and enlighten, but which ultimately keep one imprisoned in his or her own thoughts and feelings” (Evangelii Gaudium, n. 94). Gnosticism cannot transcend.

The difference between Christian transcendence and any form of gnostic spiritualism lies in the mystery of the incarnation. Not putting into practice, not leading the Word into reality, means building on sand, staying within pure idea and decaying into intimisms that bear no fruit, that render its dyamism barren. //

// 94. This worldliness can be fuelled in two deeply interrelated ways. One is the attraction of gnosticism, a purely subjective faith whose only interest is a certain experience or a set of ideas and bits of information which are meant to console and enlighten, but which ultimately keep one imprisoned in his or her own thoughts and feelings. The other is the self-absorbed promethean neopelagianism of those who ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past. A supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying. In neither case is one really concerned about Jesus Christ or others. These are manifestations of an anthropocentric immanentism. It is impossible to think that a genuine evangelizing thrust could emerge from these adulterated forms of Christianity. //

In both context the same Bergoglio is obviously totally uninterested in what Gnosticism actually was historically, and is reusing the word like a theological cuss word, only instead of being so on a doctrinal level as hitherto usual, he is using it on a pastoral or moral level.

Note:

* Irishism, I know. ** See hglwrites : A little note on further use conditions
https://hglwrites.wordpress.com/a-little-note-on-further-use-conditions/

Bergoglio NOT Getting Gnosticism, Discussion on FB

1) New blog on the kid : Bergoglio Shows He Doesn't Get Christianity ... or Gnosticism, 2) HGL's F.B. writings : Bergoglio NOT Getting Gnosticism, Discussion on FB, 3) Ruari McCallion Tries to Make Allowances for my English, 4) Bergoglio misuses "Fundamentalism" too ....

Ruari McCallion, henceforth R McC (status in group)

Did anyone notice what the Pope said about Pelagianism? I thought it was rather good.

But what about the definition of Gnosticism? What do we think of that?

(ML, you're not allowed to play unless you get Dominie to read all the way to the end!!)

Catholicism can and must change, Francis forcefully tells Italian church gathering
joshua j. mcelwee from florence
on www.vaticaninsider.com 11/10/2015
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/44584/

Remark omitted

on request of the one making it, as name in Ruari's response.

R McC

IT wasn't the Pope's definition, ...; it was the writer's.

Roger [of Cor Jesu Sacratissimum Blog]

Makes me wonder if he would accuse Aquinas of gnosticism? And especially the neo-Thomism of Leo XIII … I appreciate you posting these things R McC - a lot. But it is difficult to hit the "like" button.

R McC

The intent is to encourage people to read the entire report, rather than just the headline,Roger.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oh ...

"The reform of the church then, and the church is semper reformanda ... does not end in the umpteenth plan to change structures," he continued. "It means instead grafting yourself to and rooting yourself in Christ, leaving yourself to be guided by the Spirit -- so that all will be possible with genius and creativity."

Ecclesia semper reformanda sounds like Luther to me. Someone know an Orthodox writer who said so too, please notify me.

Here is the passage about Gnosticism:

Speaking to Gnosticism, which widely held that people should shun the material world in favor of the spiritual realm, Francis identified such thinking today with that which "brings us to trust in logical and clear reasoning ... which however loses the tenderness of the flesh of the brother."

Now, that is completely forgetting what Gnosticism was as Intellectual heresy and just focussing on the fact that it was one.

Maybe he does not completely shun the tenets of it, as long as not taking the mere attitude of intellectualism and lack of charity or supposed such.

Here is sth that for my matter I thought he was Gnostic or Neognostic about:

New blog on the kid : Bergoglio and Quarracino Neognostics?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/05/bergoglio-and-quarracino-neognostics.html

I suppose Father Cekada did not misquote him.

After that, it is up to you if my conclusions here given are correct to your reason or not.

R McC

I agree that the definition of Gnosticism was wrong, Hans-Georg, but I disagree that the Pope was in error.

It was the author of the report who got it wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Where do you get it from that "the Pope's" words were other than what the reporter got?

R McC

If you read the article carefully, you will see that it is the reporter who provides the definition; it is not a quote, nor described as one.

I have posted other reports of the same speech in order to illustrate the way that reports are coloured or influenced by the person doing the reporting.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I read carefully enough.

There is a direct quote of his words, namely:

"brings us to trust in logical and clear reasoning ... which however loses the tenderness of the flesh of the brother."

And there is also a relation by the reporter, introducing it as his words about precisely - Gnosticism.

So, you think the reporter was in error, but where exactly do you get it from that Bergoglio was NOT talking about what Gnosticism either is or means today or whatever when he uttered this definition?

R McC

Hans-Georg, this is the bit I was referring to:

Speaking to Gnosticism, which widely held that people should shun the material world in favor of the spiritual realm...

It was the reporter who wrote that, not the Pope.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, and this definition of Gnosticism BY THE REPORTER was correct.

THEN the reporter went on to say :

"Francis identified such thinking today with that which"

AFTER which he gives a direct quote by "Francis" and this makes "Francis' " identification the one given. Bergoglio was very clearly wrong on that one.

If you can't see that, you are not educated in history.

Gnosticism DID say one should shun the material world in favour of only the spiritual one. And this is NOT the same thing as by laziness shunning application of the word, it is rather another and contradicting word. Which means Bergoglio was totally wrong.

If you would argue Bergoglio never identified them, you would have to argue the reporter was a bungler.

Why was a bungler used as a reporter, if so?

And why is the "bungler" trusted by NCR?

[Joshua J. McElwee is NCR Vatican correspondent]

And what is your positive proof Bergoglio did NOT make this erroneous identification?

R McC

i think you are confusing Gnosticism with Manicheanism.

The Pope is Pope Francis. It's disrespectful to refer to him as "Bergoglio'.*

Your questions as to why the news site appointed someone you describe as 'a bungler' to this task should be addressed to the news site; I am nothing to do with it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"i think you are confusing Gnosticism with Manicheanism."

Actually not.

Both are very akin, but there are subtle differences.

The reporter was right and probably even summed up some correct words by Bergoglio in that definition of Gnosticism.

Of course, you may if you wish use the syllables Gno Sti Cism to denote sth having to do with Gnoein, with knowing, without reference to the historical sect. BUT the historical sect was very correctly defined, in the passage before the direct quote.

BOTH gnostics and manichaeans are for instance Docetists, they deny Christ came in the Flesh.

"Your questions as to why the news site appointed someone you describe as 'a bungler' to this task should be addressed to the news site; I am nothing to do with it."

Actually, I did NOT describe him as a bungler, I said he WOULD have been such if you were right.

My point is that since you can only be right if he was a bungler, you should explain why he bungled. Not just assume it, still less say sth which can only be reasonable if he did so and not even notice that.

LC

I get annoyed with the many, many words--the high-falutin vocabulary and the endless verbal gymnastics and sophistries and subtleties. Someday I hope to see a pope who is direct, matter of fact, and out and out BLUNT--whose yes means yes and whose no means no!

She got two answers

First by R McC, then by me.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I have my problems with Pope Michael or David Bawden, but he is more direct than Bergoglio.

R McC

But people complain when he does that, LC.

This was a specific audience - Italian bishops and senior clergy at their 10-year congress - for whom the language was appropriate. It was not a weekly public audience or regular public Mass.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

For such an audience, learned language may well be appropriate, but his actual twisting of words into meaning sth not too subtly different from what they actually mean is not appropriate with such an audience either.

J A-A

The Pope should be a conduit for reiterating the Doctrine of the Church based on tradition and Divine Revelation which protects souls. Perhaps it's preferable for a Pope to be boring as he is there to convey the Truth rather than to project his personality, mood and opinion.
Amen

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Should be, that is the point.

But that only applies if he is really Pope.

LC

I have wondered quite often, if the Faithful are being led by an antipope, what are their duties with regard to him--and, how would they know? There have been antipopes in the past, for certain. What happens to the continuity of the Faith under an antipope?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

An antipope does NOT represent the faith and therefore NOT the prima sedes either.

Calling him out is NOT judging the first see, if it is clear he is no Catholic.

Suppose

someone argued that were in fact judging the first see?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Not at all, if he is NOT a Catholic, he is NOT the first see. That was made VERY clear earlier.

Prima sedes a nemine judicatur, nisi deprehenditur a fide devia. The first see is judged by noone, unless it be caught redhanded in deviating from the faith. Pope Innocent III, my own translation (and memory of the Latin).

Ruari McCallion

Ah. The sedevacantists emerge.

Skipping

the discussion or discussions giving next post and going down to bottom:

MJB

I don't like the sound of the title either. Catholicism is the one true Faith. and the only it can healthily undergo is change that does not obscure that truth. The Faith can develop, as an acorn into an oak - but it cannot change from an acorn into an elephant. Catholics OTOH definitely need to change - to become more unmistakeably and fully Catholic [émoticône smile]

MW

I know where you are going MJB, but feel it should be an emphasis on being more Christ like rather than just Catholic.

MJB

The more completely Catholic Catholics are, the more Christian they will be - and conversely. Being Catholic is not one of "57 varieties" of being Christian, though I see what you mean.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That is one that Bergoglio is also missing out on.

He was probably advising "bishop" David Palmer, since then dead in a motor cycle accident, to not convert.

He also gave same David Palmer a burial service such as is given to Catholic bishops, though he was neither Catholic nor any real bishop with apostolic succession with any probability. He was not the kind of Anglican that Antiochene Church would probably give real consecrations.

Note:

* I missed the part of it being disrespectful to refer to Bergoglio as Bergoglio, but I do not intend to refer to him as Pope Francis ever again even tentatively since the day when he "canonised" the not canonisable Roncalli and Wojtyla.