tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post8603312439369232950..comments2024-03-28T09:37:08.486-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Aquinas on bad prelatesEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger131125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78617242090562703832021-07-28T09:12:43.060-07:002021-07-28T09:12:43.060-07:00"Where have I been dishonest? Where have I be..."Where have I been dishonest? Where have I been unreasonable? Stop attacking me and start addressing my arguments for a change."<br /><br />I would suggest you stop knee-jerk defending yourself, and instead try to actually see where you have been dishonest and unreasonable. (If you fail to do so, that too is dishonest and unreasonable.) And if you don't see it, don't just assume it's not there; ask for clarification. I could be wrong, but so could you. Being a hot-head won't help resolve anything.David McPikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04997702078077124822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13351122559854851522021-07-28T08:18:27.791-07:002021-07-28T08:18:27.791-07:00Daniel, I am addressing your arguments when I poin...Daniel, I am addressing your arguments when I point out that they are dishonest. I have nowhere suggested that I believe the absurd theory "that all problems would go away if we just chuck the NO mass out the door." We can't have a constructive discussion if you insist on pursuing this kind of blatant dishonesty. It is ad hominem, but entirely relevant and not in the least fallacious for me to point this out, unlike your calling me judgmental, instead of addressing yourself to understanding rightly the meaning and assessing rationally the truth of my judgments.<br /><br />You've again distorted what I said in your latest. My point, as you quoted, was that it seems implausible to think that the vast disparity between NO/TLM in adherence to certain basics of the Catholic faith is <i>only accidental</i>. You respond by rejecting an obvious <i>misconstrual</i> of my claim -- you introduce "necessary causal relation," as if that's what I said! -- and then proceed to give an argument which seems to support the claim that I actually made: that the disparity is <i>not accidental</i>.<br /><br />That, my friend, is not a reasonable way to argue. Can you see that?David McPikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04997702078077124822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41227616846150933432021-07-27T13:35:06.000-07:002021-07-27T13:35:06.000-07:00In your own words:
“You can say, "but the 2-...In your own words:<br /><br />“You can say, "but the 2-5% of NO attendees who actually believe the whole of Church teaching show that the problems are only accidentally related to the NO." But is that plausible?”<br /><br />I would say, yes, it is plausible that there is no necessary causal relation between the introduction of the NO and the falling away from the morals and teachings of the faith. My first point would be this: <br /><br />1- The falling away has occurred in other Christian denominations as well. And we can’t ascribe their falling away from traditional christian morality to their taking on the NO. They never had it in the first place. Therefore, it is far more likely that there are external pressures and causes for this loss of Biblical and traditional morality. This would mainly be the sexual revolution. And the NO mass did not cause that. In fact, the church has been one of the few bulwarks against the sexual revolution – especially John Paul II and Pope Benedict the XVI. The CCC in particular has crystallized the teachings of the church on this front. <br />2-It is my experience that many if not most folks who are part of the TLM were already 100% faithful to the teachings of the church before they moved from the NO to the TLM. Which makes me think they were taken from the pool of those who were already 100% faithful in the NO. The TLM did not cause them to be orthodox, but their orthodoxy caused them to enter the TLM. <br />3-If 2 is true, then the TLM is poaching faithful Catholics from the NO where they can turn their nose up at those poor NO folks with their unwashed masses of heterodox Catholics. I feel in a very real way, they are abandoning their duty to love their neighbor and to have mercy on the poor … not just the poor in material goods, but the poor in their understanding of the Catholic faith and instead they have opted for a Catholic fantasy land where everything is only apparently perfect. (I realize that this is harsh, and I know it does not apply to all in the TLM – but it does apply to some – especially those who thumb their noses at the NO.)<br /><br />Also, when I asked you whether you wanted the NO to disappear, you said this: <br /><br />“I think that's actually an interesting thing to ponder. I think it would probably be an enormous gain in a number of ways. And I don't suppose it would be a tragic loss, especially in light of the prevalence of various forms of abuse and sacrilege in the actual practice of the NO. ”<br /><br />When I called you on this point in my previous post ...<br /><br />"your theory that all problems would go away if we just chuck the NO mass out the door throws a crap load of faithful NOM people under the bus"<br /><br />... your response is puzzling: <br /><br />“My theory? You're serious? THIS is your best effort to be honest and reasonable? Oy.”<br /><br />Again you attack my honesty and reasonableness. Where have I been dishonest? Where have I been unreasonable? Stop attacking me and start addressing my arguments for a change. Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17479435356630882897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3701617562911942012021-07-27T10:18:59.487-07:002021-07-27T10:18:59.487-07:00"your theory that all problems would go away ..."your theory that all problems would go away if we just chuck the NO mass out the door throws a crap load of faithful NOM peope under the buss"<br /><br />My theory? You're serious? THIS is your best effort to be honest and reasonable? Oy.David McPikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04997702078077124822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-87666927592250331132021-07-27T06:37:33.757-07:002021-07-27T06:37:33.757-07:00OK. I'm just going to focus on the stats, as t...OK. I'm just going to focus on the stats, as the rest of your comments are basically ad hominems and justifications of your objectively bad behavior. <br /><br />I did a quick comparison of the stats based on the population of TLM folks in the US and NOM folks. Here is where the statistics get you in total numbers. <br /><br />TLM population (in US I presume) = 100,000 with sample size of 1,773 (2%). <br />NOM population (in the US) = 70,412,021 with sample side of (???)<br /><br />2% of TLM-attending Catholics approved of contraception vs. 89% of NOM Catholics<br /> = 98,000 TLM people don't approve<br /> = 7,745,322 NOM people don't approve<br /><br />1% of TLM Catholics approved of abortion compared to 51% of NOM attendees.<br /> =999,000 TLM people don't approve<br /> =34,501,890 NOM people don't approve<br /><br />99% of TLM Catholics said they attend Mass weekly vs. 22% of NOM.<br /> =999,000 TLM people attend weekly<br /> =15,490,644 NOM people attend weekly<br /><br />2% of TLM goers approved of “gay marriage” as opposed to 67% of NOM.<br /> =98,000 TLM people<br /> =23,235,966 NOM people<br /><br />In short, your theory that all problems would go away if we just chuck the NO mass out the door throws a crap load of faithful NOM peope under the buss. Its really faulty reasoning. Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17479435356630882897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5578566258266576762021-07-26T21:54:01.580-07:002021-07-26T21:54:01.580-07:00Daniel:
You bluntly insist on an interpretation o...Daniel: <br />You bluntly insist on an interpretation of the parable that is purely a reading-into the parable. How does it not ignore the actual narrative contained in the parable? Your rejection of my literal reading is based on ignoring scripture, which clearly insists on both the mercy and severity of God. You do what you wish with the scripture. You are not being honest about what is actually found in the scripture. <br /><br />Here's a link to the info I had in mind, to which you repeatedly respond with arguments from ignorance. <br />https://onepeterfive.com/new-survey-shows-disparity-of-beliefs-between-latin-mass-novus-ordo-catholics/<br /><br />Fallacious arguments are objectively unreasonable. To repeatedly and insistently appeal to them is a sign of stupidity or dishonesty. Maybe you're just stupid, ignorant, or pigheaded, as you suggested, but I think you're probably being dishonest too. That's not an idle charge, I think. I think it's something you should consider seriously. But I think your passions are carrying you away here, so that's probably the main thing to consider in reading your irrational ad hominem rejoinders to my arguments. Anyway, I guess we can leave it to get sorted out later (Mt 12:36).<br /><br />"Sinning willfully with full knowledge is at debate when we talk about the 95% and also how best to approach their sinfullness and level of culpability. Have they really rejected the church’s teachings with full knowledge? We can’t know that."<br /><br />This is silly. So many red herrings. You seriously think my point was that NO mass goers have just as good a knowledge of the faith as TLM goers, so that I think that I somehow know they're fully culpable of all of their objective sins? HOW? Regardless, if we run with what you're saying, the result is perhaps even more damning for the NO: the NO is so bad that most people at NO mass don't even know anymore that they're rejecting what the Church teaches. Or maybe they don't even know that they're not actually allowed to just reject Church teachings they don't like (and again, given the stats and a bit of sociological common sense, this kind of ignorance wouldn't be surprising)! This kind of thing hardly bolsters your case, does it? And you can (humbly? nonjudgmentally? honestly?) assimilate me to those "oddballs and cranks and people with a 'schismatic mentality' (whatever exactly that means) even among these Church-approved Latin Mass communities" that Feser mentions, if you like. But I don't guess Feser would agree with you, and maybe you should consider how that could be possible given that I attend NO, and I'm not part of any TLM. I'm pretty sure that's an 'idle' accusation, to say the least.<br /><br />I also submit that your claim that I have constantly attacked the NO is a lie. I have merely pointed out what seem to be very serious fundamental problems relating to basic Catholic belief and practice among those attached to the NO. I don't think I have said one thing against the NO per se.David McPikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04997702078077124822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31550412283536086522021-07-25T06:02:54.081-07:002021-07-25T06:02:54.081-07:00“But more importantly, you're the one who'...“But more importantly, you're the one who's just raising irrelevant issues (if you have an exceptional NO parish, great! -- but irrelevant). If you think the numbers I've cited are wrong, why not just say so? What have you read? Or if you haven't read anything, why find fault, if you really just have no idea? How is that honest and humble?”<br /><br />I have my own experience in Ottawa that convinces me that you are wrong and the data is an oversimplification. Can I not call on my own experience here? Is that proud or arrogant of me to do so? Also, I have called into question how you are applying the statistics of 95% you mention. You said this -I once pointed out to a friend statistics showing that something like 95-98% of NO-attending Catholics unequivocally reject basic parts of Catholic teaching, whereas near the same proportion of TLM-attendees do not. - Now in my previous post, I have asked you to provide some references. Why have you not? You have based most, if not all of your attack on the NO on this evidence. Give me the data. Its all I’m asking. I suspect it is wrong. <br /><br />“ And you clearly did talk about covering the (very public) sins of the father, so what do you mean by claiming you weren't talking about that?”<br /><br />We were talking about covering over the deficiencies of the Pope’s Moto Proprio and trying to give it as charitable a reading as possible. Or at least the bishops ought to implement it as charitably as they can. I was not talking about covering up sex abuse. That is a total non sequitur and a red herring and an uncharitable reading of my words. <br /><br />“You cited some scripture that was completely irrelevant to proving any point in contention, it seems, as well as dismissing 'my' idea of 'perfection,' which I never even talked about (wt?!);”<br /><br />It is relevant to bring out the character of God and the prodigal son and your erroneous understanding of it. How is that off topic. WT?? indeed. <br /><br />“but again, consider not only the mercy of God, but his severity (Rom 11:22). Or consider Heb 10:”<br /><br />Good – here we go – I think this is where the conversation needs to go: <br /><br />“26 If we go on sinning wilfully, when once the full knowledge of the truth has been granted to us, we have no further sacrifice for sin to look forward to;[7] 27 nothing but a terrible expectation of judgement, a fire that will eagerly consume the rebellious. 28 Let a man be convicted by two or three witnesses of defying the law of Moses, and he dies, without hope of mercy.[8] 29 What of the man who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has reckoned the blood of the covenant, that blood which sanctified him, as a thing unclean, mocked at the Spirit that brought him grace? Will not he incur a punishment much more severe? 30 It is one we know well, who has told us, Vengeance is for me, I will repay; and again, The Lord will judge his people.[9] 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”<br /> <br />Sinning willfully with full knowledge is at debate when we talk about the 95% and also how best to approach their sinfullness and level of culpability. Have they really rejected the church’s teachings with full knowledge? We can’t know that. Perhaps they are still open to God’s grace and have just not had the chance to fully examine their understanding. <br /><br />“”Don't forget Hebrews 10 when you read the parable of the prodigal son. And if I cite facts and give analysis, address the facts and analysis. Spare me the irrelevant 'judgmental' ad hominem nonsense. (Like you're not judgmental in calling someone judgmental, and hypocritical to boot?)<br /><br />This coming from the man that has called me dishonest, insincere, hypocritical, deficient in my understanding, and so on and so on and so on. Look yourself in the mirror man. <br /><br />I think I’ll end this debate here. You have have the last word my friend, if you so desire. <br /><br />Cheers,<br />DanielDanielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17479435356630882897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-635701427873654832021-07-25T05:32:31.887-07:002021-07-25T05:32:31.887-07:00“Daniel, you're just ignoring what I said and ...“Daniel, you're just ignoring what I said and ignoring what Jesus says in the parable, as well as the rest of scripture (e.g., Rom 11:22: "There is graciousness, then, in God, and there is also severity. His severity is for those who have fallen away, his graciousness is for thee, only so long as thou dost continue in his grace; if not, thou too shalt be pruned away"). As I pointed out: The father did not go find the son who rejected him. He left him to starve with the pigs. When he had enough he repented and came back, and then the merciful father rejoiced. None of what you've said is relevant to calling any of this into question, is it? I don't honestly see how you can be sincerely trying to understand what I'm saying, you're twisting things so badly.’<br /><br />Yes what I said is relevant – I was saying you are misreading the parable. How is that not relevant? What my argument with you boils down to is our perceptions of the character of God and his tolerance of sinners. I am not twisting what you are saying – I am disagreeing with it and proposing a different narrative. <br /><br />“For instance, did I say anything about St Maurice Parish? No. I said 95% of NO mass goers. That's a number I've read. So have you taken a poll of those who go to your parish? Of course not. So maybe you're the judgmental one?”<br /><br />Right – but what this fact establishes is that you elevate this poll and somehow make universally applicable. And of course I am not a mind reader either. I don't know how orthodox my own parish is. I have a perception that it is from the people I know there. But I leave this judgment making up to God and my bishops. <br /><br />Furthermore, I would like to point out – again you will claim I am being irrelevant – that Ed has not once condemn the NO mass in any way shape or form in all of my years of reading this blog. And yet you have constantly attacked it. You have said quite clearly in this thread that you think it would be a good thing to get rid of the NO mass in favor of the TLM. As Ed has said in another post, you are making trouble for TLM mass goers by this constant stream of attacks on the NO. "Second, even though there are certainly oddballs and cranks and people with a "schismatic mentality" (whatever exactly that means) even among these Church-approved Latin Mass communities, they are in my experience clearly a minority. There are far more people whose attitude is "Why do these weirdos have to make trouble for the rest of us?""Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17479435356630882897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77293952370713406752021-07-24T21:03:26.459-07:002021-07-24T21:03:26.459-07:00"I think you are reading something into the s..."I think you are reading something into the story that isn’t there. Namely, a harsh and unforgiving father. I don’t see that."<br /><br />Daniel, you're just ignoring what I said and ignoring what Jesus says in the parable, as well as the rest of scripture (e.g., Rom 11:22: "There is graciousness, then, in God, and there is also severity. His severity is for those who have fallen away, his graciousness is for thee, only so long as thou dost continue in his grace; if not, thou too shalt be pruned away"). As I pointed out: The father did not go find the son who rejected him. He left him to starve with the pigs. When he had enough he repented and came back, and then the merciful father rejoiced. None of what you've said is relevant to calling any of this into question, is it? I don't honestly see how you can be sincerely trying to understand what I'm saying, you're twisting things so badly. For instance, did I say anything about St Maurice Parish? No. I said 95% of NO mass goers. That's a number I've read. So have you taken a poll of those who go to your parish? Of course not. So maybe you're the judgmental one? But more importantly, you're the one who's just raising irrelevant issues (if you have an exceptional NO parish, great! -- but irrelevant). If you think the numbers I've cited are wrong, why not just say so? What have you read? Or if you haven't read anything, why find fault, if you really just have no idea? How is that honest and humble? And you clearly did talk about covering the (very public) sins of the father, so what do you mean by claiming you weren't talking about that?<br /><br />You cited some scripture that was completely irrelevant to proving any point in contention, it seems, as well as dismissing 'my' idea of 'perfection,' which I never even talked about (wt?!); but again, consider not only the mercy of God, but his severity (Rom 11:22). Or consider Heb 10:<br /><br /><i>26 If we go on sinning wilfully, when once the full knowledge of the truth has been granted to us, we have no further sacrifice for sin to look forward to;[7] 27 nothing but a terrible expectation of judgement, a fire that will eagerly consume the rebellious. 28 Let a man be convicted by two or three witnesses of defying the law of Moses, and he dies, without hope of mercy.[8] 29 What of the man who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has reckoned the blood of the covenant, that blood which sanctified him, as a thing unclean, mocked at the Spirit that brought him grace? Will not he incur a punishment much more severe? 30 It is one we know well, who has told us, Vengeance is for me, I will repay; and again, The Lord will judge his people.[9] 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.</i><br /><br />Don't forget Hebrews 10 when you read the parable of the prodigal son. And if I cite facts and give analysis, address the facts and analysis. Spare me the irrelevant 'judgmental' ad hominem nonsense. (Like you're not judgmental in calling someone judgmental, and hypocritical to boot?)David McPikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04997702078077124822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58835721697214867502021-07-24T13:40:14.248-07:002021-07-24T13:40:14.248-07:00“but it's pointless to do so if you have peopl...“but it's pointless to do so if you have people who don't even "preach" to begin with, that is, who refuse assent to the basic teachings of the Church, as in the case of 95% of NO mass attendees. They're not even hypocrites, they're just rebels. And your criticism of "fire and brimstone" is the real red herring. The point is just about being honest about the real demands of the gospel.”<br /><br />Ummm … have you taken a census at Saint Maurice to question the entire congregation on their level of adherence to church teaching? You seem to be very judgmental David. Unless you are omniscient, I would suggest you get off your high horse. You are not a mind reader or a reader of souls. You are not in a position to judge these people. <br /><br />“but it's pointless to do so if you have people who don't even "preach" to begin with, that is, who refuse assent to the basic teachings of the Church, as in the case of 95% of NO mass attendees. They're not even hypocrites, they're just rebels. And your criticism of "fire and brimstone" is the real red herring. The point is just about being honest about the real demands of the gospel.”<br />You misunderstood what I meant in my post. I was praising this companion priest who was getting into trouble with one of his parishioners for talking against LGTBQ propaganda. That parishioner left his parish and came to ours, and then left ours. So if anything, this seems proof to me that our Companion priests are willing to talk the talk and walk the walk. <br /><br />“As for covering the sins of the father, I think you know better. Private sins are one thing. Public scandal is another. The common good comes first and is not served by facilitating evil by tacit consent and support. Think sexual abuse scandal! Coverups are not cool.”<br /><br />Clearly I’m not talking about that. You are inserting that into the conversation at this point. <br /><br />“There's no excuse for not knowing better at this point. I'm sure you're aware Fr Mark Goring CC was silenced by the Companions' leadership for daring to call for real accountability. But in truth, often covering up sins is actually participating in those sins, by being an accessory to those sins, to use the traditional term -- which I'm sure you must be aware of, but only because you spent a lot of time at a TLM parish!”<br /><br />I learned this from the CCC David, not from my TLM parish. I admire Fr. Mark Goring for speaking out boldly during the Mccarrick scandal. But you know what impresses me more about him? Its the fact that he obeyed his superiors when he was told to shut up. And by the way, guess who is the priest who was getting into trouble for preaching against LGTBQ propaganda? It was Fr. Mark. And guess who also pissed off this guy – my own parish priest at Saint Maurice. And all they did was preach what the CCC proclaims. <br /><br />Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17479435356630882897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72239998562221670692021-07-24T13:35:38.427-07:002021-07-24T13:35:38.427-07:00“But that is plainly wrong. You know not the scrip...“But that is plainly wrong. You know not the scripture, nor the power of God, in saying this. The father does not forgive the son who is obstinate in rejecting him. He leaves him to starve and suffer with the pigs. He forgives the son who repents. I know the Companions might not tell the story that way, but that's the way Jesus tells it.”<br /><br />David – I think you are reading something into the story that isn’t there. Namely, a harsh and unforgiving father. I don’t see that. In fact, I see the son’s return is very self centered. He just wants to live the good life again. I don’t blame the other brother in resenting the party the father threw for his son. It seems really excessive given the fact that the prodigal son ran off with his full inheritance. In a very real way, by returning, the prodigal is now eating into the good son’s inheritance. <br /><br />In a sense, I think the story of the prodigal son shows a love and a mercy from God that does not demand perfection - at least not in the way you seem to think about perfection. And I think this aligns with Mathew 5 -<br /><br />“43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.<br />44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;”<br /><br />Sounds like your typical NO parish full of rebels and miscreants who are a various levels of formation in their moral development. <br /><br />“45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.<br />46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?<br />47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?<br />48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.”<br /><br />This is a very different view of what perfection means, in my opinion. And I think this is where you err – you have a faulty view of what perfection is. <br /><br />“I think clear statistical measures show that claim to be simply false. There is a strong correlation which demands explanation.”<br /><br />You keep on bringing this up. Where are you getting your numbers? Do they apply to every NO parish across the board? How could they know that? Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17479435356630882897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56473169579824722882021-07-24T10:45:28.637-07:002021-07-24T10:45:28.637-07:00"But TLM folks appear to be like the elder so..."But TLM folks appear to be like the elder son in the Prodigal son story sometimes, as well. He clearly resents his father for forgiving the prodigal son too easily, then throwing him a party."<br /><br />But that is plainly wrong. You know not the scripture, nor the power of God, in saying this. The father does not forgive the son who is obstinate in rejecting him. He leaves him to starve and suffer with the pigs. He forgives the son who repents. I know the Companions might not tell the story that way, but that's the way Jesus tells it.<br /><br />"But it is a balancing act. And I think the type of liturgy espoused is a red herring when it comes to adherence to the moral teachings of the church." <br /><br />I think clear statistical measures show that claim to be simply false. There is a strong correlation which demands explanation. It's fine to talk about hypocrisy -- "practice what you preach" -- but it's pointless to do so if you have people who don't even "preach" to begin with, that is, who refuse assent to the basic teachings of the Church, as in the case of 95% of NO mass attendees. They're not even hypocrites, they're just rebels. And your criticism of "fire and brimstone" is the real red herring. The point is just about being honest about the real demands of the gospel. That's simply an obligation, there's no balancing act. Now <i>how</i> to do it is a real question, but the NO balancing act is all about <i>should</i> we do it -- and in fact almost never doing it. And why? Because some LGBT ideologue might not like it, and that's somehow an important consideration?? It's like saying there's a balancing act about preaching the incarnation, because Muslims might not like it. It's damnable nonsense.<br /><br />As for covering the sins of the father, I think you know better. Private sins are one thing. Public scandal is another. The common good comes first and is not served by facilitating evil by tacit consent and support. Think sexual abuse scandal! Coverups are not cool. There's no excuse for not knowing better at this point. I'm sure you're aware Fr Mark Goring CC was silenced by the Companions' leadership for daring to call for real accountability. But in truth, often covering up sins is actually participating in those sins, by being an accessory to those sins, to use the traditional term -- which I'm sure you must be aware of, but only because you spent a lot of time at a TLM parish!David McPikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04997702078077124822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79815589495992442682021-07-23T21:02:49.852-07:002021-07-23T21:02:49.852-07:00That comment on the homily is suspect, yes. In lig...That comment on the homily is suspect, yes. In light of that, i can see why you would read the reflection on Our Lady as having this hidden message. Now the interpretation makes sense.<br /><br />I doubt that the pope do not believe in Our Lord incarnation or His capacity of making miracles, i remember he clearly talking about these things in some homilies, but this tendency to downplay the supernatural that you see in liberals is truly silly. Who cares about what the modern world thinks? Not Our Lord nor His saints. Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53456690371999739632021-07-23T03:21:44.085-07:002021-07-23T03:21:44.085-07:00With respect, I would like to point out that Bergo...With respect, I would like to point out that Bergoglio’s method of deception relies on the application of precisely the principle of charity by the faithful, since it permits the erosion over time of dogma and doctrine. The key phrase his reflection is “no strange things in life,” whose intentional vagueness does the work of casting doubt on the unique miraculous events of the Immaculate Conception and Virgin Birth. Moreover, and this is crucial, this approach is but one instance in Bergoglio’s assault on the miraculous. <br /><br />For instance, in his homily on the Solemnity of Corpus Christi in June of 2019, he flagitiously denied the great nature miracle by which Christ fed a multitude with just five loaves of bread and two fish.<br /><br />As you know, the Gospel of Mathew describes the miracle as follows: “Then he ordered the crowds to sit down on the grass; and taking the five loaves and the two fish he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and broke and gave the loaves to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds. And they all ate and were satisfied. And they took up twelve baskets full of the broken pieces left over. And those who ate were about five thousand men, besides women and children” (Mt 14:19-21; cf. Mk 6:40-44 and Lk 9:14-17, which have essentially the same wording, and Jn 6:10-14, which diverges only slightly). <br /><br />Whatever happened here, it is quite clear that the very small quantity of matter contained in five loaves and two fish, was exponentially enlarged after Christ’s “blessing.” Thus, something miraculous occurred.<br /><br />Now, here is Bergoglio’s exegesis of this event:<br />“Jesus.., .after having recited the blessing, gave the bread to be distributed, revealing in this the more beautiful significance: bread is not only a product of consumption: it is a means of sharing. In fact, surprisingly, in the telling of the multiplication of the loaves, multiplication is never mentioned. On the contrary, the verbs utilized are “break, give, distribute.” (cf. Lk 9:16) In short, the act of sharing rather than the multiplication is emphasized. This is important: Jesus does not perform an act of magic; he does not transform the five loaves into five thousand loaves and then day: “Now distribute them.” No, Jesus prays, blesses those five loaves and begins to distribute then, trusting in the Father. And those five loaves never finish. This is not magic; it is faith in God and in his providence” https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/homilies/2019/documents/papa-francesco_20190623_omelia-corpusdomini.html).<br /><br />Notice that the concept of miracle nowhere enters into this analysis; rather, Bergoglio engages in a sleight of hand, counterpoising the notion of “magic” with that of “faith in God.” His deprecation of multiple loaves, of which none of the Gospels in fact speak, insinuates that such a multiplication, certainly within the powers ascribed to Christ by the Evangelists, would have to be magical rather than miraculous. Now, magic is defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as “All practices . . . , by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one's service and have a supernatural power over others.” Jesus was, of course, accused of magic (as in Mt 12:24 or Lk 11:15), but the Gospels reject this falsity and instead proclaim that “Jesus accompanies his words with many “‘mighty works and wonders and signs’, which manifest that the kingdom is present in him and attest that he was the promised Messiah” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 547). In other words, when personally present here on Earth, Christ revealed His divine power through miracles. It is precisely this power that is denied in turning the feeding of the five thousand with five loaves and two fish into a simple “act of sharing,” accomplished not by the powers of Christ but through "faith." Here, we have the Incarnation filtered through the decadent left-wing “humanist” ideology that is the hallmark of this pontificate. <br />Vito B. Caiatinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27491696452020021752021-07-22T20:38:50.568-07:002021-07-22T20:38:50.568-07:00You are seeing to much there. The pope is clearly ...You are seeing to much there. The pope is clearly saying that Our Lady is normal on the sense that her life is mostly like the ones we have. As he says: "She worked, shopped, helped her Son, helped her husband: normal." It is not that her life never had miracles or that she sinned, it is that her life was one from a housewife. <br /><br />Of course, from her marriage to her living in Nazare life was PRETTY busy, after Our Lord started His ministry too, but i don't see the pope as denying that part, it is just that he is choosing to focus on Our Lady housewife life, i guess. If we apply the principle of charity, it looks okay for me. Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41376274806711927102021-07-22T17:24:10.628-07:002021-07-22T17:24:10.628-07:00Allow me to offer one example of the insidious met...Allow me to offer one example of the insidious method employed by Pope Francis and those around him to subvert dogma and doctrine, both of which may remain formally unaltered but are in actuality weakened.<br /><br />In its October 7, 2018 edition, Corriere della Sera offered excepts from Pope Francis' book on the Virgin Mary. I provide the first paragraph of this longer reflection, followed by my translation.<br /><br />Da quando è nata fino all’Annunciazione, al momento dell’incontro con l’angelo di Dio, me l’immagino come una ragazza normale, una ragazza di oggi, una ragazza non posso dire di città, perché Lei è di un paesino, ma normale, normale, educata normalmente, aperta a sposarsi, a fare una famiglia. Una cosa che immagino è che amasse le Scritture: conosceva le Scritture, aveva fatto la catechesi ma familiare, dal cuore. Poi, dopo il concepimento di Gesù, ancora una donna normale: Maria è la normalità, è una donna che qualsiasi donna di questo mondo può dire di poter imitare. Niente cose strane nella vita, una madre normale: anche nel suo matrimonio verginale, casto in quella cornice della verginità, Maria è stata normale. Lavorava, faceva la spesa, aiutava il Figlio, aiutava il marito: normale.<br /><br />From her birth until the Annunciation, at the moment of the encounter with the angel of God, I imagine her [the Virgin Mary] as a normal girl, a girl of today, I cannot say a girl of the city, because she is from a hamlet, but normal, normal, educated normally, open to marrying, to having a family. One thing that I imagine is that she loved the Scriptures: she knew the Scriptures; she had carried out catechesis but informally, from the heart. Then, after the conception of Jesus, she was still a normal woman. Mary is normality, is a woman that almost any women in this world is able to imitate. No strange things in life, a normal mother: even in her virginal matrimony, chaste in that frame of virginity, Mary was normal. She worked, shopped, helped her Son, helped her husband: normal.<br /><br />Leaving aside the triteness of these reflections, they constitute, first, a masked assault on the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which proclaims that “The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 494). While we cannot know the intimate effects of such “singular grace and privilege” on Mary’s being and consciousness, we are certainly bound to hold that she was no “normal girl.” Moreover, Bergoglio’s words can be taken to deny the perpetual virginity of Mary, in that while he speaks of her being “chaste in the frame of virginity,” he simultaneously regards her “after the birth of Jesus” as “a normal woman” since there are “no strange things in life.” Again, the Church affirms that although Jesus emerged from the body of the Theotokos, her virginity was not in any way altered. Now, if this is not a “strange thing,” that is, an absolutely unique miracle, what is? <br /><br />Francis and those around him are constantly at work undermining the foundations of the faith to the benefit of post-modern skepticism and relativism. This underhanded chipping away of dogma and doctrine is their customary means of doing so.Vito B. Caiatinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9058047424775138272021-07-21T13:17:50.754-07:002021-07-21T13:17:50.754-07:00David, I would hope I would take it in the spirit ...David, I would hope I would take it in the spirit of sonship towards my spiritual father in the Church. Not believing that he is impeccable, and understanding that such actions are abusive and unreasonable, I would do my best to cover over his failures, as Noah's good sons did after he went on a bender. And I would try to implement his decrees in such a way as to minimize the harm it would do. I believe that most bishops are in that position right now. Some of them will use it as an opportunity to suppress. Others will find ways around it. <br /><br />"(I understand you read this MP in light of your negative experience, but think about it seriously. The MP targets not just incorrigible bigots with no reasonable sense of history, or compassion, or openness to legitimate diversity; it targets people like Dr. Feser. Do you really want to be supportive of that?)"<br /><br />Of course not. You and I both know the wonderful people who go to the TLM in our city. I am sad for them. My own mother-in-law is one of them and my heart goes out to her. This was really badly done. I hope Archbishop Damphousse will do the right thing here and not use it as a weapon to destroy the FSSP here. <br /><br />Having said that, I do wish the FSSP included the NO. I do think that refusing to even participate in an NO liturgy with their own bishop as a show of unity is divisive. For better or for worse, they do not have their own bishops and they need to come to their bishop's home for dinner every once and a while. TLM only parishes, I think, violates the vision that Benedict had for the future of both rites. <br /><br />Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17479435356630882897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5325468944076300072021-07-21T07:30:29.445-07:002021-07-21T07:30:29.445-07:00Daniel, I also have to wonder, would you also be d...Daniel, I also have to wonder, would you also be deeply upset if the NO didn't disappear, but, say, was banished from parochial churches and placed under the absolute control of autocratic bishops who hated it? And salt that wound with this: imagine this takes effect as of today and the only explanation offered is of the kind offered in PF's latest MP?<br /><br />(I understand you read this MP in light of your negative experience, but think about it seriously. The MP targets not just incorrigible bigots with no reasonable sense of history, or compassion, or openness to legitimate diversity; it targets people like Dr. Feser. Do you really want to be supportive of that?)David McPikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04997702078077124822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35187514194819894972021-07-21T05:50:30.531-07:002021-07-21T05:50:30.531-07:00Hey David,
“But I think your analogy manifestly ...Hey David, <br /><br />“But I think your analogy manifestly limps in light of the reality of the matter….”<br /><br />Agreed – I tried to provide indications and hints that father is not always acting fairly, justly, or even wisely. I will concede this about the moto proprio – it was done in a callous and asshole-ish manner. And I sincerely hope he either change it drastically or his successor does so – even while at the same time supporting his right to do so and trying to be sympathetic to his possible motivations – which just so happens to somewhat parallel my own experience with leaving the TLM a decade ago. The TLM folks have just grievances with the way the NO was implemented and the way they were treated for decades after Vatican II. I can maintain this while at the same time affirm the validity and goodness of the NO when done well. And even if there were some wicked and subversive people on the committees that created the the NO, their intentions need not amount to anything. The Church belongs to God, not to them. And God can draw great goodness out of evil – I’m sure of it. <br /><br />“I think that's the main reality -- and of course we both know there are complications.”<br /><br />Agreed. But TLM folks appear to be like the elder son in the Prodigal son story sometimes, as well. He clearly resents his father for forgiving the prodigal son too easily, then throwing him a party. <br /><br />“As for my opinion about the respective rites, or versions of the rite, I have no problem with the NO mass per se (i.e., if it is 'done well,' to put it broadly), it's the one I attend usually, but that's not at all relevant to my point. What is more relevant is that it is very difficult to find a NO mass that is not only (a) attended by 95% son2 types, but (b) also run by son2-type parish priests, or at least priests who are evidently either cowards or indifferent to their obligation to the truth, to admonish and teach in all the wisdom of the gospel.”<br /><br />I don’t think this is right. Again, I will just point at the work the companions are doing and leave it there. I see you are being critical of them in your second post – and you may have some valid points. But no order is perfect. <br /><br />“I think the problem with TLM people is they're often misinformed and dishonest about things that are 'outside' of the Catholic tradition.”<br /><br />Right – agreed. <br /><br />“The problem with NO people is that a large majority of them are often misinformed and dishonest also about things that are clearly inside the Catholic tradition and form an integral and authoritative part of that tradition.”<br /><br />Agreed. But then it comes down to a pastoral decision on how best to minister to such as these? Do we take a gradualist approach, and tolerate their presence in our churches while attempting to move them to accept doctrines and moral teachings they clearly reject or don’t live up to in any way? Or do we smoke them out with constant fire and brimstone sermons? The success of our FSSP parish shows there is clear appetite for the second approach. And even some of the companions have gotten into trouble. I know of one parishioner of a nearby parish who has left his church because the priest preached against LGTBQ propaganda in schools. He left because his own daughter was LGTBQ and felt like he could not tolerate the churches teachings on this subject anymore. <br /><br />But it is a balancing act. And I think the type of liturgy espoused is a red herring when it comes to adherence to the moral teachings of the church. Which is why I sincerely (LOL) brought up the moral failings of those in the TLM community that I know about. They may be 100% orthodox like son 1, but they are also sometimes total hypocrites. <br /><br />Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17479435356630882897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23751224913065091792021-07-21T02:55:43.811-07:002021-07-21T02:55:43.811-07:00Am not a TLM guy, but...
Francis says that vatican...Am not a TLM guy, but...<br />Francis says that vatican ll intended to reform the liturgy to enhance communal worship as a people, whereas TLM has been a vehicle for individual more than collective worship.<br /><br />One might ask, why might folks retreat into personal piety? Could it not be that they recoil from corruption, sexual abuse, lack of discipline toward the homomania that infects the heirarchy? Or the encouragement to condone unrepentant sinners?<br />Did not people of other times retreat into the desert and into monasteries because of the corrosive effect of the current regime, both secular and churchly?<br />I find that the trad demographic tends to show toward the young. It is a basic instinct of young families to protect the brood from outside danger. They may not be theologically sophisticated, but they intuit institutional corruption and are doing what they can to flee to safety.<br />No wonder they aren't responding well to his command to pay, pray and obey according to the left liberal vision.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18396652361348972612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68780090299956150432021-07-21T02:16:40.867-07:002021-07-21T02:16:40.867-07:00Ed, Honorius said orthodox things which were taken...Ed, Honorius said orthodox things which were taken out of context by heretics in order to make trouble. Ratzinger has said something outrageous which has to be taken in its non-natural sense in order to save it.<br /><br />I think we need to forget all about Honorius at this point...Aquinianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09539991968870301779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33596253846048041722021-07-21T00:07:36.555-07:002021-07-21T00:07:36.555-07:00Hello again Aquinian,
I don't think there'...Hello again Aquinian,<br /><br />I don't think there's any reason to read what Ratzinger said that way, certainly not from the passage considered by itself. For one thing, reading it as a colorful way of say "suffered from churchmen" makes sense in context, i.e. as a way of describing Davies' situation. And for another, it was just a brief and kind comment on a man's death, not an academic theological article or an ecclesiastical document, so imprecision is not surprising in that context.Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57894773626172865482021-07-20T22:49:05.661-07:002021-07-20T22:49:05.661-07:00Thanks Ed, so we agree that the phrase in its obvi...Thanks Ed, so we agree that the phrase in its obvious meaning is unorthodox, and Ratzinger shouldn't have used it. But of course, I glossed over his use of it in the quote you used, because that would be the least of his heresies. I care about you, I have no interest in him, I'm afraid.<br /><br />I went and re-read what you wrote. The impression one takes is that Ratzinger said that we can "suffer from the Church" (a striking statement because unorthodox) and you took that as authority to say the same thing. <br /><br />"End quote. Notice that Cardinal Ratzinger acknowledged that Davies suffered from the Church – and that nonetheless, he remained loyal to her, and thus loyal to the successor of St. Peter."<br /><br />I'm not disputing your intention, of course, I'm suggesting that you try and read your own wording as if you were reading someone else's work, and see what impression it gives.<br /><br />Now, why did Ratzinger use that peculiar wording? I think it's because he acknowledges the fact that it isn't just "churchmen" who have caused the Church to collapse, it's - by traditional theological understanding - the Church herself, if Paul VI was pope. Because the acts that have largely demolished the Church have all been official, not the acts of these men acting as private individuals.<br /><br />The problem's real, it caused more than fifty thousand priests to abandon their vocations in just ten years ('65-'75) and countless religious to do likewise, and the effect on the laity has been simply mind-bending in its scale.Aquinianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09539991968870301779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78208323312940682172021-07-20T22:20:08.161-07:002021-07-20T22:20:08.161-07:00Aquinian,
Don't be ridiculous. Obviously &qu...Aquinian,<br /><br />Don't be ridiculous. Obviously "suffer from churchmen" is exactly what I meant. And I used the other phrase because I was quoting from Ratzinger, and then echoing the phrase for effect. It was -- obviously -- a purely stylistic thing. So can it with the "heresy" nonsense.Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27420786068693900692021-07-20T20:58:24.073-07:002021-07-20T20:58:24.073-07:00Wonderful and lucid comment, Vito.
My issue with ...Wonderful and lucid comment, Vito.<br /><br />My issue with this blog post, apart from the non-parallels put forward in it, is the direct contention that we can "suffer from the Church." I have been reflecting on that for days, and it seems to me to be actually heretical. The only way to "save" it is to claim that it must be understood as "suffer from Churchmen" (i.e. NOT from the Church herself) but if that were the intended meaning then why say "from the Church" at all? <br /><br />I love Feser's work, and I hate to criticise him, but this seems like one of those things one cannot ignore. <br /><br />More broadly, nobody in the mainstream, either Novus or TLM, really believes in the infallibility of the Church any more; they have come to regard the countless statements of the popes, the Fathers, the Councils, and the theologians and saints, to the effect that the Church is the secure ark of salvation, that error cannot exist in her, that she assiduously guards the revelation of Christ and securely brings it to each new generation of men (i.e. the very reason for the living magisterium), etc., as some kind of pious exaggerations, because in fact nobody trusts what they regard as "the Church" implicitly any more - not even those "JP2 conservatives" that we would call neo-caths. Even those people parish-hop to get something that they regard as tolerable. They certainly don't trust "the Church" to keep them safe. They trust "certain Churchmen" to keep them safe. Their notion is quite distinct from the orthodox notion - it would best be described as trusting that the truth, and safety, and ultimately, salvation itself, will be found "within" the Church and "by" the Church, but only if you go find it... So, the Church herself is unreliable - she may indeed make you suffer and lead you to perdition, by, for example, teaching you through her universal catechism that false religions are means of salvation, or that the death penalty is contrary to God's law, but by special graces you can spot the errors and avoid them, and be saved.<br /><br />None of this is orthodox, frankly, and demands a radical analysis that few are prepared to face. But the alternatives are either unorthodox notions about the Church as loving and trustworthy mother, the magisterium, and many other aspects of ecclesiology, or loss of faith. So, rather than lose the faith, good people cling to it whilst emptying much of it of coherent and - frankly - credible, content. They reduce numerous Catholic dogmas to meaningless formulae, to borrow a phrase from Pius XII.Aquinianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09539991968870301779noreply@blogger.com