The rumors about this new suppression of the TLM? Stay tuned...

[Michie]

The American presidential race has provided plenty of headlines for the secular outlets this week. As for news of the Catholic world? Not so much.

The National Eucharistic Congress was a spectacular event, apparently inspiring many thousands of the faithful. But while adoration of the Blessed Sacrament is at the heart of Catholic spiritual life, it does not provide catchy story lines. Meanwhile at the Vatican, the relative quiet reveals the fact that in Rome, most sensible people take time off in July. Consequently our headlines have been less numerous and less dramatic than usual.

So let me say something about a potentially dramatic news story that we did not cover—because it did not happen.

For the past several weeks a rumor has been circulating that the Vatican will issue new restrictions on the celebration of the traditional Latin Mass (TLM). We could not confirm those rumors. But several ordinarily reliable journalists insisted that the reports were true: that the document had been prepared, and only awaited final approval and release.

The rumors about this new suppression of the TLM were spread widely enough, and deemed credible enough, to spark several pre-emptive responses. A group of prominent English cultural figures issued an open letter about the “worrying reports,” urging the Vatican to “reconsider any further restriction of access to this magnificent spiritual and cultural heritage.” A similar group of American artists and writers followed suit, saying: “To deprive the next generation of artists of this source of mystery, beauty, and contemplation of the sacred seems shortsighted.” Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco added his plea that “this cri de coeur… will be heard.” The retired Archbishop of Guadalajara, Cardinal Juan Sandoval Iñiguez, urged: “Pope Francis, do not allow this to happen.”

While the rumor mill churned, confident reporters predicted the date when the new Vatican document would be released. Some said it would be July 16, others picked July 19.

Well, I am writing on July 19, as midnight approaches in Rome. The dreaded document has not appeared.


Continued below.

This week’s big story that didn’t break

Well, I am writing on July 19, as midnight approaches in Rome. The dreaded document suppressing the TLM has not appeared.

www.catholicculture.org

 

[Chrystal-J]

What does this Pope have against TLM?

 

[chevyontheriver]

What does this Pope have against TLM?

Must be something very primal.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The American presidential race has provided plenty of headlines for the secular outlets this week. As for news of the Catholic world? Not so much.

The National Eucharistic Congress was a spectacular event, apparently inspiring many thousands of the faithful. But while adoration of the Blessed Sacrament is at the heart of Catholic spiritual life, it does not provide catchy story lines. Meanwhile at the Vatican, the relative quiet reveals the fact that in Rome, most sensible people take time off in July. Consequently our headlines have been less numerous and less dramatic than usual.

So let me say something about a potentially dramatic news story that we did not cover—because it did not happen.

For the past several weeks a rumor has been circulating that the Vatican will issue new restrictions on the celebration of the traditional Latin Mass (TLM). We could not confirm those rumors. But several ordinarily reliable journalists insisted that the reports were true: that the document had been prepared, and only awaited final approval and release.

The rumors about this new suppression of the TLM were spread widely enough, and deemed credible enough, to spark several pre-emptive responses. A group of prominent English cultural figures issued an open letter about the “worrying reports,” urging the Vatican to “reconsider any further restriction of access to this magnificent spiritual and cultural heritage.” A similar group of American artists and writers followed suit, saying: “To deprive the next generation of artists of this source of mystery, beauty, and contemplation of the sacred seems shortsighted.” Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco added his plea that “this cri de coeur… will be heard.” The retired Archbishop of Guadalajara, Cardinal Juan Sandoval Iñiguez, urged: “Pope Francis, do not allow this to happen.”

While the rumor mill churned, confident reporters predicted the date when the new Vatican document would be released. Some said it would be July 16, others picked July 19.

Well, I am writing on July 19, as midnight approaches in Rome. The dreaded document has not appeared.


Continued below.

This week’s big story that didn’t break

Well, I am writing on July 19, as midnight approaches in Rome. The dreaded document suppressing the TLM has not appeared.

www.catholicculture.org

I'm glad it didn't drop. But then again it could drop at any time. If it had dropped it would have been a nasty rebuke to a bunch of sincere Catholics, basically saying that the Vatican wants them to go away.

 

[fide]

What does this Pope have against TLM?

Maybe there is just too much of the Passion in it. The first pope, Simon Peter, had trouble with the Passion too:

Mt 16:21 From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.
Mt 16:22 And Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, "God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you."
Mt 16:23 But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men."

Peter at that time had much of the spirit of the world in him. And so soon, so quickly after Jesus had blessed him:

Mt 16:16 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Mt 16:17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
Mt 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
Mt 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Excessive worldliness - which means inadequate faith in the spiritual, the supernatural - is deeply troubling when manifest in the primates of the Church. Wokeness means a blindness to the divine, an obsession with the natural. When a priest walks like a woke, talks like a woke, quacks like a woke, he is a worldling and spiritual Catholics are a pain in his pride.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Excessive worldliness - which means inadequate faith in the spiritual, the supernatural - is deeply troubling when manifest in the primates of the Church. Wokeness means a blindness to the divine, an obsession with the natural. When a priest walks like a woke, talks like a woke, quacks like a woke, he is a worldling and spiritual Catholics are a pain in his pride.

Can you define this use of the word "Woke" for me please.

I live in an area of the world where there are a lot of Native Americans, and they always say "I am awake", which means they are aware of the world around them and see it as it really is. That's the only use of "woke" I ever heard of before the Governor of Florida started using it and don't think it mean the same thing.

How are you using this word and what does it mean in this context?

 

[fide]

Can you define this use of the word "Woke" for me please.

I live in an area of the world where there are a lot of Native Americans, and they always say "I am awake", which means they are aware of the world around them and see it as it really is. That's the only use of "woke" I ever heard of before the Governor of Florida started using it and don't think it mean the same thing.

How are you using this word and what does it mean in this context?

The term is fluid, able to flow and develop, and has nuances of meaning specific to specific subcultures. But in the Augustinian perspective of a human universe of two cities, (1) the City of God / the heavenly city, or (2) the earthly city, the city of man, the "woke" citizens are of the city of man, and are those seeking to advance themselves in worldly currencies (money, power, reputation, influence, comfort, luxury, pleasure,...). As to morality, they are amoral; as to honesty they are manipulative and duplicitous, as to religion they believe in whatever will advance their pleasure; as to truth they believe truth to be whatever will advance their power over others, their autonomy. The center of their life is "me". They are a house divided and cannot stand; they will fall, they will fail because they are false, there is no truth in them.

In current usage, to be "woke" is the exact opposite of really being "awake" and aware of what IS. They profess and believe absurdity. They are described in Scripture in this way:

2Th 2:7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way.
2Th 2:8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, and the Lord Jesus will slay him with the breath of his mouth and destroy him by his appearing and his coming.
2Th 2:9 The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders,
2Th 2:10 and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
2Th 2:11 Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false,
2Th 2:12 so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

This is not complete and definitive, but I hope begins to describe what we are now experiencing of wokeness.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

The term is fluid, able to flow and develop, and has nuances of meaning specific to specific subcultures. But in the Augustinian perspective of a human universe of two cities, (1) the City of God / the heavenly city, or (2) the earthly city, the city of man, the "woke" citizens are of the city of man, and are those seeking to advance themselves in worldly currencies (money, power, reputation, influence, comfort, luxury, pleasure,...). As to morality, they are amoral; as to honesty they are manipulative and duplicitous, as to religion they believe in whatever will advance their pleasure; as to truth they believe truth to be whatever will advance their power over others, their autonomy. The center of their life is "me". They are a house divided and cannot stand; they will fall, they will fail because they are false, there is no truth in them.

In current usage, to be "woke" is the exact opposite of really being "awake" and aware of what IS. They profess and believe absurdity. They are described in Scripture in this way:

This is not complete and definitive, but I hope begins to describe what we are now experiencing of wokeness.

Ok

so why are we appropriating a word for being not asleep when we have the perfectly good “immoral” or ” worldly” ?

Are you afraid to us these words in this situation or what ?

Because using woke instead of immoral is like a scientologist using “glib” instead ”criticism“.

It make you look like you’ve drunk a kooling beverage. If you understand my allusion.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Ok

so why are we appropriating a word for being not asleep when we have the perfectly good “immoral” or ” worldly” ?

Are you afraid to us these words in this situation or what ?

Because using woke instead of immoral is like a scientologist using “glib” instead ”criticism“.

It make you look like you’ve drunk a kooling beverage. If you understand my allusion.

I'd think words like 'immoral' and 'worldly' are rather passe to those who are immoral or worldly. They probably wouldn't even engage with those words other than to dismiss the person who used them as hopelessly 'unwoke' and in need of a re-education camp.

 

[RileyG]

I pray it’s preserved for generations to come.

 

[fide]

Ok

so why are we appropriating a word for being not asleep when we have the perfectly good “immoral” or ” worldly” ?

Are you afraid to us these words in this situation or what ?

Because using woke instead of immoral is like a scientologist using “glib” instead ”criticism“.

It make you look like you’ve drunk a kooling beverage. If you understand my allusion.

Do the words "George Orwell" and "1984" come to mind? The word "woke" - past tense for the verb "wake" - became street talk code for its opposite, how? why? Because Satan is a liar; there is no truth in him. He seeks to destroy the idea of Truth itself.

Orwell's dystopia made "Newspeak" the official language, and the term "Doublethink" meant the combining of two contradictory realities into one word to firmly plant cognitive dissonance into the reasoning minds of the subjects.

This from HERE:

Doublethink

Doublethink is one of the most essential Newspeak words in 1984. It refers to a type of cognitive dissonance where one is capable of bailing two things at once. These two things should, if one’s reasoning is clear, cancel one another out.

The party slogans are one of the clearest examples of doublethink. It purports that one thing is another, even though those reading/hearing the slogan know it means something else entirely. For example:

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

So in the contemporary state of the tactic of "rule by lying" - to bring about the death of common sense, to enable the mass swallowing of obvious lying, "woke" is sane, contradiction is rationality, etc.

So, it's cool to be hot, if you get my drift.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Do the words "George Orwell" and "1984" come to mind? The word "woke" - past tense for the verb "wake" - became street talk code for its opposite, how? why? Because Satan is a liar; there is no truth in him. He seeks to destroy the idea of Truth itself.

Orwell's dystopia made "Newspeak" the official language, and the term "Doublethink" meant the combining of two contradictory realities into one word to firmly plant cognitive dissonance into the reasoning minds of the subjects.

This from HERE:

So in the contemporary state of the tactic of "rule by lying" - to bring about the death of common sense, to enable the mass swallowing of obvious lying, "woke" is sane, contradiction is rationality, etc.

So, it's cool to be hot, if you get my drift.

Fide I don't think you understand that you're the one promoting Newspeak here, not me.

The whole point of Newspeak was to eliminate words from the language in order to inhibit people's ability to think about things critically.

Double plus ungood.

If a Bishop (or whoever, I forgot who we're talking here.) is acting immorally, then say they are acting immorally. Saying they are acting "woke" is
Newspeak.

Well, actually not Newspeak as much as Trump cult speak, but I'm not going to get into that here.

 

[fide]

Fide I don't think you understand that you're the one promoting Newspeak here, not me.

The whole point of Newspeak was to eliminate words from the language in order to inhibit people's ability to think about things critically.

Double plus ungood.

If a Bishop (or whoever, I forgot who we're talking here.) is acting immorally, then say they are acting immorally. Saying they are acting "woke" is
Newspeak.

Well, actually not Newspeak as much as Trump cult speak, but I'm not going to get into that here.

What exactly did I write to you that you interpreted, of you: "you're the one promoting Newspeak here, not me." My intention was merely try to explain what "woke" means - to answer your direct question. Please explain how you took my words - a brief explanation of something - to be accusing you of promoting anything!

 

[Wolseley]

The term "woke" goes at least back to the 1920's, and has its origins in the black community. Basically, it was an admonition for black people in the South to stay alert to any danger coming from racist whites, e.g., "If you go down to Natchez, you best stay woke---the Klan is pretty strong down there." Until the death of George Floyd, the term seems to have remained primarily a black definition for being sensitive to nuances of discrimination, unfairness, or racism.

After the year 2000, however, when restrictions against so-called "gay marriage" were lifted across a great part of the world, the term began to be appropriated by progressive liberals and was used to describe anyone who looked favorably upon homosexuality, and somewhat later, transgenderism. Anyone who jumped on the bandwagon in favor of gay couples who were "discriminated against" by Christian cake bakeries, for example, was considered "woke". If someone had formerly been against the mainstreaming of homosexual behavior, but had changed their minds and now accepted it, they were considered "woke".

Around the time the pandemic hit, "woke" had been expanded to include anyone who came down in favor of pretty much any of the progressive left's favorite flogging horses: "gay marriage"; transgenderism; abortion; militant feminism; or any other situation where somebody was considered to be discriminated against. You had those who were "woke", and those who were not, who were usually described as oppressive, patriarchal, fascist, racist, etc., etc., etc.; we've all heard the terms.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

What exactly did I write to you that you interpreted, of you: "you're the one promoting Newspeak here, not me." My intention was merely try to explain what "woke" means - to answer your direct question. Please explain how you took my words - a brief explanation of something - to be accusing you of promoting anything!

Sure thing:

Woke, according to you, means to describe something this moral as immoral. That "woke" means (in your usage specifically, I've seen it described differently elsewhere) the opposite of being awake.

Ok, fine.

My only point is, why use the word at all in this sense. You said something like: A woke priest is woke if they look like a woke, talk like a woke, act like a woke.

I'm saying : just say "immoral". (or some other English adjective that described the situation).

Saying "woke" when you mean "immoral" is prevaricating and reducing the language to meaninglessness or, worse, individual interpretation.

Like a thing I've notice is the use of "unalive" on social media for "dead".

Things die, people die, say they're dead. It's not provocative nor is it improper to say these things, these people, are dead.

Just say the priest is morally wrong, immoral, whatever. It's that easy.

And

FTR

I thought we were having a conversation about language I it was certainly not my intent to insult you in any way.

 

[RileyG]

The term "woke" goes at least back to the 1920's, and has its origins in the black community. Basically, it was an admonition for black people in the South to stay alert to any danger coming from racist whites, e.g., "If you go down to Natchez, you best stay woke---the Klan is pretty strong down there." Until the death of George Floyd, the term seems to have remained primarily a black definition for being sensitive to nuances of discrimination, unfairness, or racism.

After the year 2000, however, when restrictions against so-called "gay marriage" were lifted across a great part of the world, the term began to be appropriated by progressive liberals and was used to describe anyone who looked favorably upon homosexuality, and somewhat later, transgenderism. Anyone who jumped on the bandwagon in favor of gay couples who were "discriminated against" by Christian cake bakeries, for example, was considered "woke". If someone had formerly been against the mainstreaming of homosexual behavior, but had changed their minds and now accepted it, they were considered "woke".

Around the time the pandemic hit, "woke" had been expanded to include anyone who came down in favor of pretty much any of the progressive left's favorite flogging horses: "gay marriage"; transgenderism; abortion; militant feminism; or any other situation where somebody was considered to be discriminated against. You had those who were "woke", and those who were not, who were usually described as oppressive, patriarchal, fascist, racist, etc., etc., etc.; we've all heard the terms.

I wasn't aware of that history, and found this post very enlightening. thank you for sharing.

In other words, woke is used for those who support someone's sinful decisions without being told their actions are wrong? That what this post sounds like to me.

 

[fide]

Sure thing:

Woke, according to you, means to describe something this moral as immoral. That "woke" means (in your usage specifically, I've seen it described differently elsewhere) the opposite of being awake.

Ok, fine.

My only point is, why use the word at all in this sense. You said something like: A woke priest is woke if they look like a woke, talk like a woke, act like a woke.

I'm saying : just say "immoral". (or some other English adjective that described the situation).

Saying "woke" when you mean "immoral" is prevaricating and reducing the language to meaninglessness or, worse, individual interpretation.

Like a thing I've notice is the use of "unalive" on social media for "dead".

Things die, people die, say they're dead. It's not provocative nor is it improper to say these things, these people, are dead.

Just say the priest is morally wrong, immoral, whatever. It's that easy.

And

FTR

I thought we were having a conversation about language I it was certainly not my intent to insult you in any way.

To say someone is immoral is a judgment about the person's individual habitual actions. To say someone is "woke" is to say something about the person's self-surrender to a sick, evil culture. Ultimately he has signed away his conscience, his reasoning, his moral responsibility all to be part of a collective that contradicts the divine intention for human persons. In a word it is to follow evil and not good, falsity and not truth, death and not life, hatred and not love. Finally it is to love self above all else.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

To say someone is immoral is a judgment about the person's individual habitual actions. To say someone is "woke" is to say something about the person's self-surrender to a sick, evil culture. Ultimately he has signed away his conscience, his reasoning, his moral responsibility all to be part of a collective that contradicts the divine intention for human persons. In a word it is to follow evil and not good, falsity and not truth, death and not life, hatred and not love. Finally it is to love self above all else.

See ?

Now this is what I was looking for.

Thank you for defining "woke" for me.