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/