Skip to comments.The Cool Kids donít actually BELIEVE any of that [snip]
Posted on 05/08/2014 12:09:40 PM PDT by Repent and Believe
In truth, the most salient fact of contemporary Catholic life in the West is the way it is pervaded by the pattern of saying things and then acting as if something else were true.
(Im learning, slowly. Everything below that is sarcasm or the voice of a liar, heretic or apostate is in GREEN.)
Indeed. This sentence, penned earlier this week by a secular columnist almost sums up what pretty much everyone is too cowardly to say. In fact, it is the base premise underlying the derivative statement above that is the real 800 pound gorilla sitting squarely in the middle of the room. And, since it is my job to state with all of the bluntness, clarity and precision I can muster the objective truths that no one else will say, Ill say it. Ill answer the question: Why do Catholics today, including and most especially clergy and religious going all the way to the TOP, say one thing and then act as if something else were true?
Because they dont actually believe any of it.
Now, you can squirm and call me uncharitable all you like, but deep down you know just as well as I do that if you were able to corner the vast majority of these people at a cocktail party where they would open up to you honestly, OF COURSE they dont believe in the Divinity of Christ. OF COURSE they dont believe in the concept of sin, much less Original Sin, and certainly not in any sort of judgment by a personal deity, much less the ridiculous fictions of hell or damnation. OF COURSE they dont believe in the Mass as The Holy and August Sacrifice of Calvary Made Present, and CERTAINLY not in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. I mean, come on, this is all a bunch of medieval bullshit that a bunch superstitious neanderthals used to oppress and control each other up until we sang a newchurch into being in 1965 after Saint Second Vatican Council incarnated in the hearts of men on October 11, 1962, and then ascended on December 8, 1965, thus liberating modern man from nineteen centuries of monumentally embarrassing and oppressive bullshit.
It doesnt matter what the Mass was like before, and it doesnt matter what the Fathers and Saints taught before, because MANKIND ITSELF was different, and not just different but INFERIOR. Thus everything old is just a bunch of bullshit, and everything new is good, and thus the Church must also be new, and thus different. None of that ridiculous old bullshit can possibly speak to the new, superior modern man, who, being liberated from nineteen centuries of bullshit, can now encounter Christ and dialogue with him as an equal. Anyone who takes any interest at all in any of that archaic nonsense must then, by definition, be of sub-standard intelligence at best, and TOTALLY UNCOOL at worst. You dont want to be UNCOOL, do you? You dont want to be THROWN OUT OF SEMINARY, do you? You dont want to be disdained and sneered at and mocked behind your back by your professors, superiors and peers, do you? You dont want to be exiled to some *gasp* RURAL parish, do you? You dont want people to think that you ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT BULLSHIT, right?
Modern man, having moved beyond and having been liberated from the bullshit, can now act as his own arbiter of truth, conceptualizing the notions of good and evil within himself, and truth, goodness and beauty are now negotiable and dynamic. Modern man need not rely upon or even be informed by strict, antiquated, superstitious teaching (the bullshit), but now, in his superiority, can confidently rely on how things make him FEEL, and thus liberate himself and others from the bullshit, and thus stop obsessing over minutiae and trivia, and start worrying about the things that really matter: giving the state the power to redistribute wealth and incur incalculable debt so that unlimited amounts of free shit can be given to poor people, thus eliminating material inequality which is the root of social evil, and, of course, climate change.
The concepts of mercy and charity must be redefined as PERMISSIVENESS born from INDIFFERENCE according to the new order the exact opposite of their antiquated and oppressive pre-St. Vatican II bullshit meanings.
Ladies and gentlemen, in the eyes of these people there is today only one sin, and that sin is actually believing what the Catholic Church teaches. It embarrasses them. It embarrasses them to the point of rage.
Over Passiontide I came across several pieces on the web speculating as to the motives behind Judas Iscariots betrayal of Our Lord. One surmised that Judas loved Our Lord so much that he wanted to force the hand of the Romans and Jews and bring about the installation of Christ as an earthly king. Another postulated mere greed as the core motive. No, no, no. We are told in John 6 exactly why Judas betrayed Our Lord.
Judas was EMBARRASSED by Our Blessed Lord. And there is nothing in this world that stokes and fans the flames of hatred as quickly and violently as EMBARRASSMENT.
John 6. The Eucharistic Discourse. Let me recount the events briefly. This moment is the height of Jesus earthly ministry in terms of popularity. He has drawn a crowd of five thousand men (verse 10), which means that when women and children were counted there were even more than that. Anyway, at minimum five thousand people have spontaneously gathered around Him. This is impressive to say the least. Judas and the other Apostles are STOKED and are seriously starting to think about Jesus somehow being made king and expelling the Romans, and all of the perks that go along with being a member of the inner circle of a KING. Then Jesus performs the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes. OH. MY. GOSH. Serious momentum building now. This is so cool. Hes gonna be king and were gonna be PRINCES. And then
You must eat My Flesh and drink My Blood. Over and over and over again.
And all the people start saying, What in the WORLD is He talking about?
Hearing and seeing the thousands and thousands of people pretty much freaking out at His words, and, you know, being God Incarnate and omniscient and all, He then repeats it with more clarity and force. For My Flesh is meat indeed: and My Blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My Flesh, and drinketh My Blood, abideth in Me, and I in him.
At this point the entire crowd, who just a few minutes ago were totally on board with the program, and would have been the vectors of a likely movement to put Jesus on the Throne of David, almost to the man get up and leave. C-ya.
And why did they leave? Because Our Blessed Lord just told them about His Real Presence in the Eucharist that bread and wine would be transubstantiated such that their substance would actually become the substance of God that we could physically eat and thus take into our own bodies because that is how much He loves us.
The other eleven Apostles are CONFUSED to be sure (arent we all), but they know who Jesus is, and their faith, despite their near-total confusion, keeps them from abandoning Him. Jesus walks over to them, and instead of saying, Aw, shucks, I was just talking symbolically, as the protestant heresy would have Him do, He gets in their faces and forces them to make an Act of Faith right then and there: Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?
At this point Peter makes one of the greatest Acts of Faith in all of human history, up there with the Fiat of the Blessed Virgin at the Annunciation and the near-sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham: And Simon Peter answered Him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that Thou art the Christ, the Son of God.
Backing up to verse 65, we see Judas who was so utterly EMBARRASSED by Our Lords revelation to mankind of the Holy Eucharist, and the near-instantaneous loss of the power base that Judas, just a few short minutes before, envisioned elevating him to a princely throne with all of the wealth and power and popularity-by-association that would come with it, that he is enraged, and is already plotting to betray Jesus. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray Him.
Please note that the metric here is not UNDERSTANDING, but BELIEF. No one to this day understands the mechanisms of transubstantiation. Got that? It is a mystery how the substance of one thing can be changed into the substance not just of something else, but of God Himself, whilst the accidents (the appearance, taste, etc.) remain. Absolutely. No. Clue. It requires faith. Hence, verse 64: It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.
Judas Iscariot did not believe in the Holy Eucharist and was thus EMBARRASSED by and ASHAMED of It, which is to say, Our Lord. This embarrassment and shame was instantly converted into anger and hatred of Our Lord.
Ahem. Cough-cough. Is anyone else experiencing a weird deja vu kind of vibe right about now?
Now, bringing it full circle, tell me who you would assign the following quote to: Judas Iscariot or the average modern western Catholic?
How in the hell do you expect us to get anyone to join and support us if you keep talking about this bullshit? This superstitious crap might have flown back in the day, but crazy bullshit like that only drives people away now. You either need to drop that talk all together, or walk it back and tone it way the hell down into some meaningless, non-offensive symbolism or shared community meal meme, or something. Bottom line, you are embarrassing us with this bullshit. STOP EMBARRASSING US.
And so, ladies and gentlemen, the next time you see or hear something that fits the pattern of saying things and then acting as if something else were true, ask yourself if the following foundational premise would totally, completely explain everything you are seeing:
They dont actually believe any of it.
During the hippie days and sexual revolution days of the 60's it was generated as a way to state "I'm not going along with tradition. I'm for the modern." That is to say, "Come along with us cold-hearted folk who are rejecting popular culture."
Today the term has a more populist usage but the meaning remains: to reject traditional "square", prudish ways and to embrace rather the more lawless, "I'm free to do as I please" mentality.
“Cool” is not the same as “correct.”
This is what the correct link should be.
And you posted this in Religion???
And the mods don’t like cusswords in the title, even with *****.
Thread to be deleted in 5, 4, 3....
Good, hard-hitting criticism of modern irreligious compromise!
“Cool” originally meant anything that was fashionable among people who agreed that they were cool.
Cannibalism is important to Catholics apparently. There is so much symbolism and pomp in the church but if others think eating and drinking Jesus is symbolic, they are heretics.
Anyone who really thinks crackers from Ye Old Cracker Co and wine from a box is actually the flesh and blood of Jesus are probably nuts.
Democrats and leaders of the left don’t really believe the crap they spew either.
You are a true blessing to Catholics around the world, Ann, and a stanch defender of the faith. May your reward be great in Heaven.
Ann Bernhardt always makes a number of God points, but she seems to be unbalanced with rage. It’s very hard to listen to her yelling contempt and dripping sarcasm and costar claims of moral superiority while still parsing the bits of truth she wraps it around. She needs to adjust her meds, or get on some meds, or get off some meds, out eat better, or exercise more, out just stop writing until she finds some humility. She imagines she’s an Old Testament prophet, and claims “her job” is to dish out the tough love. No, Ann, you’re not. At least, not until you develop the immense compassion and love real saints have for the people they scold - rather than the derision, mockery and rejection of your screeds. You’re drunk with the sin of pride, Ann. Go to confession.
“cool” has the working definition of
“being at just the right state of rebellion to tradition or the status quo where you aren’t quite seen as dangerous to your peers”
There’s always the dichotomy of the elite left vs the sheep left.
Talking to a sheeperal, you’ll get really confused because they will either refuse to espouse a principle or they will justify having opposite principles depending on the situation.
I love Ann’s political/social commentary, but this isn’t my cup of tea.
And so you see Holy Communion is not cannibalism: not even analogous, not even close. It differs from cannibalism in every respect.
Plus, the only humanly decent response to Jesus when He says, "Take and eat, this is My Body," is not "You must be nus."
“She imagines shes an Old Testament prophet, and claims her job is to dish out the tough love. No, Ann, youre not. At least, not until you develop the immense compassion and love real saints have for the people they scold - rather than the derision, mockery and rejection of your screeds...”
What are your thoughts on Saint Stephen’s speech before the council found in the Book of Acts chapter 7?
The saint’s words:
 You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do you also.  Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they have slain them who foretold of the coming of the Just One; of whom you have been now the betrayers and murderers:  Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.  Now hearing these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed with their teeth at him.  But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looking up steadfastly to heaven, saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God. And he said: Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
What part of “take this. . . eat it. . . this is My body. . . do this. . .” don’t they understand?
Offensive title for the religion forum
Could not it be changed to just
The Cool Kids don’t actually believe any of that.......
**And the mods dont like cusswords in the title, even with *****.
Thread to be deleted in 5, 4, 3....**
I’m not Catholic, but I think you could be far more charitable. Yes, transubstantiation is wrong, but the source is the influence of Aristotle on the church. It is an interesting philosophical move, but it is heretical. Nevertheless, I’ve found that most Protestants are exactly like the Catholics she describes. They are pagans with a cultural Christian veneer. Transubstantiation isn’t the important issue.
So day after day you hear of babies being aborted by the millions per year.
And you don’t or won’t understand Ann’s rage.
Knowing of the atrocities of abortion and not EXPRESSING outrage may indicate a lack of moral maturity.
Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam
Tell that crap to Isaiah.
The renown arrogance of these truthy prophets of old just screams, “unbalanced with rage”.
People believed or didn’t believe back then too. Choice is still infinite, to live or die with, even today.
Obviously, we are all lining up accordingly.
“I’m not Catholic.....”
I’m not a strawberry?
Ann is not Isaiah, and she does not hold the door to salvation.
To think otherwise is crap.
The point is what is Ann’s goal? Preaching to the choir, or waking people up?
She’s good at the righteous snarling and condemnation and mockery. So what? You think that’s going to make people stop and think? Yo think people, like me, who think she’s shooting herself in her own foot, don’t understand what makes her angry? Nonsense. But there’s effective and non-effective anger - and she’s not effective. All she does is whip up people who already agree with her, and make sure those who don’t shut off. She’s righteous enough to be perfectly fine with that. She’s also righteous enough to think that she speaks for God. But is she trying to save souls, or reveling in the idea that sinners will burn? The difference is EVERYTHING.
Or is she just being her own fan club? Ever think of that?
I think that for all of Saint Stephen's tough talk, he was also teaching and trying to save sinners by including reasonable teachings, comparisons, and arguments. I think Saint Stephen genuinely wanted those sinners to repent, and was trying as hard as he could to help them do that, and wake them up by plainly confronting them with their wrongdoing while supporting it with things they could comprehend, and invoking the glory of God that was still available for them if they repented their sinning.
In contrast, I think Ann wants sinners to burn while she laughs with righteous fury over their agony.
To me, therefore, the former represents saintly sanity, while the latter represents hateful madness.
AMEN!! I wish I had a stronger word. Thanks for stepping up and nailing to down.
You must be a woman or a liberal.
Ann is too harsh, too hurtful, she doesn’t play nice with others (who happen
to be godless morons), she’s not tolerant, she isn’t loving, she just wants unrepentant dinners to be damned, (as promised by The Lord), she’s just, just, just too mean to bad people.
Oh you poor little waif, Ann gets you all nervous....
For the Greater Glory of God
Read Matthew 25 from verse 31. Sheep and goats. They have one thing in common. Both are surprised.
The headline fits Republican leaders and conservatism even better.
And you're a coward.
I’m very happy for you ;-)
The use of the word “cool” in this sense pre-dates the 1960s and the hippiness by several decades, so your explanation is not credible.
“The use of the word cool in this sense pre-dates the 1960s and the hippiness by several decades, so your explanation is not credible.”
Not to doubt you; some citations or references would be helpful.
At any rate, the point offered remains valid. As with any collapse or catastrophe earlier factors contribute and oft become more pronouced or developed as the collapse or catastrophe commences.
Peace In Christ
BTW, the word "cool" is an old jazz musicians' word. Much of the hippie vocabulary was cribbed from old jazz musicians.
“Ann Bernhardt always makes a number of God points, but she seems to be unbalanced with rage...”
She’s not a saint, she’s a scold. The world needs both.
The world has far too few of the former, and far too many of the latter. And while she is the latter, she shows every indication of believing she's the former.
“... she shows every indication of believing she’s (a saint).”
Perhpas you could show a handful of examples of her “every indication?” You see something I don’t.