tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post1695353276014321088..comments2024-03-28T13:39:03.094-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Some comments on the open letterEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger134125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-92213443227586582982020-02-07T07:38:03.029-08:002020-02-07T07:38:03.029-08:00I know I'm late to this now defunct discussion...I know I'm late to this now defunct discussion, but I and my whole family converted from Anglo-Catholicism to the Catholic faith via the Traditional Latin Mass. For decades any time we visited an NO church it left us scratching our heads how it is our Protestant Anglican service could outstrip the paltry Novus Ordo by every objective metric -- what could have possibly spawned such a poor service in the Catholic Church? We weren't interested in a Protestantized service. We were Anglo-Catholics, it would have been a step backward for us. Quite simply, the Novus Ordo scandalized us for a very long time. <br /><br />Anyway, I am glad to be part of the ICKSP, I have no hard feelings toward Catholics who are differently minded about the NO, but I don't see any way truly to salvage it. And in my neck of the woods, it's the traditional Mass that's kept our parish full to overflowing Sunday after Sunday. The NO churches around us don't have nearly as many young families, and mostly populated by 65 and over Catholics. <br /><br />We traditionalists are by no means a perfect lot, truly some strange folks on the fringes for sure, but I'm happy to be numbered among them.<br />Steven Augustinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09805079382412217016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50441051847294363692020-02-07T07:19:36.863-08:002020-02-07T07:19:36.863-08:00I know yours is an old post, but you dropped an at...I know yours is an old post, but you dropped an atom bomb of truth which deserves high praise. Thank you for this great post.Steven Augustinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09805079382412217016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-352439289542492019-05-22T01:40:54.156-07:002019-05-22T01:40:54.156-07:00One solution to all of the above is to shift the f...One solution to all of the above is to shift the focus from the talking of the talk to the walking of the walk, from doctrine to service.<br /><br />Phil Tannynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3343046626352448102019-05-21T19:51:10.001-07:002019-05-21T19:51:10.001-07:00Like Miguel, I'm out of time, and in addition,...Like Miguel, I'm out of time, and in addition, I am serenely content to leave the matter there, giving you the last word. Others will ponder and decide which of us had the best arguments and sounded most reasonable.<br /><br />Regards,<br />John.Aquinianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09539991968870301779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54105301928047590712019-05-21T13:32:38.329-07:002019-05-21T13:32:38.329-07:00part II
>The solution is the clergy getting th...part II<br /><br />>The solution is the clergy getting their act together.<br /><br />I am not against that but that can only be accomplished by educating the laity on doctrine.<br /><br />>Teaching and studying religion and theology is the vocation of the religious ex officio.<br /><br />Rather it is for everybody who cares about the faith. Some will be better at it than others but it is for everybody.<br /> <br />>To do it properly requires formation and submission. The Church has been compared to a flock and shepherd, a ship with a captain, crew and passengers, or an army led by captains; it is not a virus. <br /><br />I agree.<br /><br />>The definition of the soldier is not a good shot or a great fighter, but someone who obeys. This is why they are not keen on gun nuts or weekend warriors. <br /><br />We are all soldiers in this fight. All are drafted.<br /><br />>Part-timers, the self-taught and amateurs have been a never-ending source of errors and trouble in all this. As their own judgement is their only guide they cannot ever get it right.<br /><br />Yet how many of these people tell me not to listen to the current Pope or to Vatican II? Opps!<br /><br />>I am used to conservatives calling those seen as more traditional than themselves all sorts of names (names the Church does not use in fact).<br /><br />Well in my life experience Trads spend more time attacking Conservatives then they did helping conservatives fight liberals. Now they act supprised when liberal over-run the Church?<br /><br />>It's funny how conservatives like those who signed the letter to the Bishops are now raving on about deposing the Pope (all the while professing various kinds of error), something which Archbishop Lefebvre had no interest in and found incredible.<br /><br />Those people aren't "conservatives" anymore. They are Radtrad or you can call them Radcons. They are not Catholic.<br /> <br />>The same conservatives are very likely on the road out of the Church for good. <br /><br />If so it's because they pick up bad habits from Trads.<br /><br /><br />>I can't continue this discussion because I don't have the time and others are better able to deal with these issues. Perhaps we'll argue it out over a beer. In the meantime, try not to go beyond what Rome says about traditionalists - not a sign of an anathema or schism mentioned as you know.<br /><br />I make no promises when confronted by idiots who consecrate their own bishops and or other idiots who judge the Pope a heretic or confess sedevacantism. I don't drink beer but I will take some Kalua.<br /><br />>Sectarianism is just another sad proof of crisis. You don't need to chuck people out of the Church. They'll go all by themselves if they want. Watch the conservatives.<br /><br />Well the last I checked conservatives don't consecrate their own bishops over a liturgy. But they shouldn't immitate the worst of Trads only the best of Trads.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11922438152891245022019-05-21T13:31:10.171-07:002019-05-21T13:31:10.171-07:00>Obviously the anathemas at Trent were not mean...>Obviously the anathemas at Trent were not meant to prevent criticism of communion in the hand.<br /><br />I don't give a rat's arse about that petty squabble I am answering the extremists in your camp who denounce the Paul VI Rite in general.<br /><br />Communion in the hand is all a red herring anyway.<br />http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html<br /><br />>Again (your refusal to read the original paragraph about Pope Benedict is making progress very slow here): did Pope Benedict escape the anathemas of Trent by keeping his mouth shut about communion in the hand, while refusing to practice it?<br /><br />I won't answer it because I DON'T CARE. I am attacking the extremists who denounce the whole of Vatican II and the Paul VI rite. BTW I don't see then Cardinal Ratzinger breaking communion over it or advocating the illicit consecration of bishops.<br /><br />>You're a bit like the those who say no Pope can reform the Mass because of Quo Primum.<br /><br />I am actually 100% the opposite of that.<br /><br />>The Eastern orthodox women's ordination and deaconess movement would fit inside my living room. <br /><br />Well there are only 200 million Eastern Orthodox world wide and there are A Billion and half of us. Also we get more press than they do and we have more money.<br /><br />>The Church isn't a democracy. Well-formed laity sent tens of thousands of vocations to the seminaries from the 1960s, where they were promptly deformed doctrinally.<br /><br />Except lay religious education was quite inferior which would make those people vulnerable. <br /><br />>There is no way round this. Our Lord said "Feed my lambs; feed my sheep", not "Train them to become survivalists"<br /><br />What is with the Protestant either/or mentality? It's not either/or it is in fact both/and.<br /><br /><br />>In the past most Christians were illiterate and their knowledge of the Faith and many other things could be sketchy. However, they knew what was essential for the times. <br /><br />But that doesn't preclude us improving on orthodox religious education the lack of which I maintain is the sole cause of liberalism.<br /><br />>Of course people need good knowledge of the faith, but it's not necessary or possible for them to become experts in theology or philosophy.<br /><br />HORSESHIT! The lay conservatives and Trads I have spoken to over the years have a more than sufficient knowledge of theology. No liberal I have ever met has any knowledge of theology or philosophy and wouldn't know Transubstanciation from a hole in the head.<br /><br /><br /> >One of the reasons radtrads (and many other oddities) exist is that the takeover of by incompetent clergy has incited many of the laity to become "experts", pontificating and excommunicating left, right and centre.<br /><br />Careful with this charge. It can be blown back on you. The issue is are you obedient or are you not? <br /><br />>While the laity should play a role in religious education under the direction of the clergy, the arrival of self-appointed lay theologians (all the worse if they have done a university course) is the culture from which "deaconesses" spring.<br /><br />Ironically many a Trad I have encountered in the age of Francis thinks lay theologicans should take over for lack bishops in guiding the laity. This all smells like clericalism.<br /> <br />Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56671949946805456752019-05-21T13:04:51.146-07:002019-05-21T13:04:51.146-07:00Obviously the anathemas at Trent were not meant to...Obviously the anathemas at Trent were not meant to prevent criticism of communion in the hand. Again (your refusal to read the original paragraph about Pope Benedict is making progress very slow here): did Pope Benedict escape the anathemas of Trent by keeping his mouth shut about communion in the hand, while refusing to practice it? You're a bit like the those who say no Pope can reform the Mass because of Quo Primum.<br /><br />The Eastern orthodox women's ordination and deaconess movement would fit inside my living room. <br /><br />The Church isn't a democracy. Well-formed laity sent tens of thousands of vocations to the seminaries from the 1960s, where they were promptly deformed doctrinally. There is no way round this. Our Lord said "Feed my lambs; feed my sheep", not "Train them to become survivalists"<br /><br /><br />In the past most Christians were illiterate and their knowledge of the Faith and many other things could be sketchy. However, they knew what was essential for the times. <br /><br /><br /><br />Of course people need good knowledge of the faith, but it's not necessary or possible for them to become experts in theology or philosophy. One of the reasons radtrads (and many other oddities) exist is that the takeover of by incompetent clergy has incited many of the laity to become "experts", pontificating and excommunicating left, right and centre. While the laity should play a role in religious education under the direction of the clergy, the arrival of self-appointed lay theologians (all the worse if they have done a university course) is the culture from which "deaconesses" spring. The solution is the clergy getting their act together.<br /><br />Teaching and studying religion and theology is the vocation of the religious ex officio. To do it properly requires formation and submission. The Church has been compared to a flock and shepherd, a ship with a captain, crew and passengers, or an army led by captains; it is not a virus. <br /><br />The definition of the soldier is not a good shot or a great fighter, but someone who obeys. This is why they are not keen on gun nuts or weekend warriors. <br /><br />Part-timers, the self-taught and amateurs have been a never-ending source of errors and trouble in all this. As their own judgement is their only guide they cannot ever get it right.<br /><br />I am used to conservatives calling those seen as more traditional than themselves all sorts of names (names the Church does not use in fact). It's funny how conservatives like those who signed the letter to the Bishops are now raving on about deposing the Pope (all the while professing various kinds of error), something which Archbishop Lefebvre had no interest in and found incredible. The same conservatives are very likely on the road out of the Church for good. <br /><br />I can't continue this discussion because I don't have the time and others are better able to deal with these issues. Perhaps we'll argue it out over a beer. In the meantime, try not to go beyond what Rome says about traditionalists - not a sign of an anathema or schism mentioned as you know.<br />Sectarianism is just another sad proof of crisis. You don't need to chuck people out of the Church. They'll go all by themselves if they want. Watch the conservatives. Miguel Cervanteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01891484277032885884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56292473423010466272019-05-21T09:21:14.147-07:002019-05-21T09:21:14.147-07:00>More hyocrisy, I'm sorry. "Traditiona...<br />>More hyocrisy, I'm sorry. "Traditional" isn't important to you, or you'd have the problems we have with the changes. Or is it merely a "tu quoque" riposte, not really serious?<br /><br />Learn to read English buddy there is a good fellow. I am talking about Radtrads. Extremist so called Traditionalists who error to the right. Not all Traditionalists.<br /><br /><br />>I remind you of what you wrote: "Everything I learned about Catholic doctrine I learned as an adult reading Catholic Apologists. I sure as heck didn't learn it in CCD. They where too busy talking about feelings not doctrine. That was clearly the problem."<br />I stand by it. I don’t say things then refuse to own them like a certain person who falsely accused Pope St Paul VI of being a homosexual based on charges put forth by a French Pederast. <br />>So, you learn your faith from self-appointed lay apologists such as Scott Hahn, whilst REJECTING the instruction provided by those you regard as the official representatives of the Church. <br />Scott Hahn never went into schism and took his learning from official representatives of the Church. What is an “official representative” to you buddy? A Bishop who illegitimately received his consecration without Papal mandate? Hysterical! LOL! <br />>The official instruction programme, approved and organised by the bishops, the CCD, is no good (we agree on that much).<br />No we don’t. My point was I never received official instruction. Just feelings till I was 12 then religious education such as it was ceased.<br /> >But your position isn't Catholic, AT ALL. It's essentially, obviously, Protestant. You pick your own teachers.<br />What like the French Archbishop? Hypocrite! All my teaches are Catholics in good standing. Are yours?<br /><br /> >That is because you can't trust the Church. How more openly Protestant could a position be? Ours, on the other hand, is consistent and Catholic. We "hold fast to the traditions we have received" and that is our crime, and our only crime. We decline to abandon those traditions. For this we are abused, calumniated, and hypocritically accused of rending a unity which was utterly devastated by those same changes we decline to participate in. <br /><br />You are irrational, sentimental and inconsistent. Which is why I can’t take you lot seriously. Wanting to preserve the old ways is lovely but they are merely a means to an end not an end in themselves.<br /><br />>As Ed Feser might say, at some point you will notice that actually, our arguments are rather compelling and have actually to be answered. Abuse won't wash.<br />I have been posting here for years longer then you. Prof Feser doesn’t support lunatic fringe people on the left or right. <br />Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72129190692756083882019-05-21T09:06:47.403-07:002019-05-21T09:06:47.403-07:00>OK, let's for the sake of the argument adm...>OK, let's for the sake of the argument admit this (which I do not, obviously, admit). Where does that get us? <br />It tells us that the St Paul VI gives the same divine graces as the St Pius V and that your personal superstition the Pius V rite has some inherently greater grace or orthodoxy is bogus. As is any claim the rites of the Paul VI are a source of impiety rather then piety.<br />>We have a synthetic new rite, an entirely novel concept in Christian tradition, and which happens to be orientated towards Protestant sensibilities, playing down specifically Catholic doctrines and being explicitly designed to be acceptable for use by Protestants for their own services. Part of the process of developing this new rite involved the invitation to six Protestant experts to advise.<br />This is radtrad Protestant propaganda. It is simply not true.<br />http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/stickler.html<br />http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/appendixa.html<br /><br />>The Lutherans have said that they can use it, and they have actually used it on occasion.<br /><br />High Church Lutherans are all but Catholic in their sacramental theology like High Church Anglicans. Indeed some at the Vatican believe Lithuanian Lutherans have valid holy orders. So I don’t see the problem.<br />>The immediate response of many was to complain about this new rite, and ask for the old mass instead. Brutal denial was the answer. You MUST celebrate, or attend, this new rite, and you cannot have the old one, it's forbidden. So, the faithful Catholic was left with a conundrum - either apparent disobedience or cooperate in the new rite, which savours of heresy because it was explicitly designed to be approved of by heretics.<br /><br />Excuse me but Pope St John Paul II resorted observance of the rite (which you don’t have an inherent right too. You have a right to the sacraments and the Paul VI Mass is valid & it is heresy for your High Church Protestant kind to say otherwise). Benedict made it even more accessible and Francis hasn’t taken it away so quit your bitching. <br />>Those who chose apparent disobedience were vindicated, forty years later, by Jospeh Ratzinger, Benedict XVI, who stated officially that the old mass had never legally been forbidden.<br />But he didn’t say rogue trad bishops could consecrate their Priests bishops without a papal mandate. Nice try Radtrad. Ergo you are schismatics and you are dishonest too boot. Talking to you kind is like talking to an oily politician. <br />>Even pagans could use Catholic churches for their worship, as they did famously in Assisi in '86, but those who wanted the old mass could not.<br />This is more Protestant Radtrad nonsense.<br />http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/assissi.html<br /><br />>So, if I refrain from saying what I don't like about the new mass, so that Trent's anathemas no longer apply, am I OK attending only the old mass? (Of course, the entire proposition is the purest hypocrisy, because the anathemas against the Orthodox were explicitly lifted by Paul VI, and no anathemas are ever issued against anybody else, but apparently anathemas do still apply - exclusively to trads.)<br />You commit fallacies of equivocation at the drop of a hat. Pope St Paul VI (whom you falsely accused of being a homosexual & won’t own it because you are a coward). Revoking the penalty of the anathema for the orthodox schism does not authorize you to claim the Paul VI is a source of impiety rather then piety. One has nothing to do with the other.<br /><br />Lame.<br />Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51893217928991397542019-05-20T22:55:40.970-07:002019-05-20T22:55:40.970-07:00Continued:
<< Radtrads are simply not tradi...Continued:<br /><br /><< Radtrads are simply not traditional. >><br /><br />More hyocrisy, I'm sorry. "Traditional" isn't important to you, or you'd have the problems we have with the changes. Or is it merely a "tu quoque" riposte, not really serious?<br /><br /><< Basically you are a Protestant only more High Church. >><br /><br />I remind you of what you wrote: "Everything I learned about Catholic doctrine I learned as an adult reading Catholic Apologists. I sure as heck didn't learn it in CCD. They where too busy talking about feelings not doctrine. That was clearly the problem."<br /><br />So, you learn your faith from self-appointed lay apologists such as Scott Hahn, whilst REJECTING the instruction provided by those you regard as the official representatives of the Church. The official instruction programme, approved and organised by the bishops, the CCD, is no good (we agree on that much). But your position isn't Catholic, AT ALL. It's essentially, obviously, Protestant. You pick your own teachers. That is because you can't trust the Church. How more openly Protestant could a position be? Ours, on the other hand, is consistent and Catholic. We "hold fast to the traditions we have received" and that is our crime, and our only crime. We decline to abandon those traditions. For this we are abused, calumniated, and hypocritically accused of rending a unity which was utterly devastated by those same changes we decline to participate in. <br /><br /><< You are an extremist nutter which is what is wrong with Traditionalism today. Too many nutters. >><br /><br />As Ed Feser might say, at some point you will notice that actually, our arguments are rather compelling and have actually to be answered. Abuse won't wash.Aquinianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09539991968870301779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54771314525003713392019-05-20T22:55:16.295-07:002019-05-20T22:55:16.295-07:00@Son of Ya'Kov
<< Except it is against ...@Son of Ya'Kov<br /><br /><< Except it is against the Council of Trent for you to bash the authorized Rite of the Mass "If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses are incentives to impiety rather than offices of piety, let him be anathema." >><br /><br />OK, let's for the sake of the argument admit this (which I do not, obviously, admit). Where does that get us? We have a synthetic new rite, an entirely novel concept in Christian tradition, and which happens to be orientated towards Protestant sensibilities, playing down specifically Catholic doctrines and being explicitly designed to be acceptable for use by Protestants for their own services. Part of the process of developing this new rite involved the invitation to six Protestant experts to advise. The Lutherans have said that they can use it, and they have actually used it on occasion.<br /><br />The immediate response of many was to complain about this new rite, and ask for the old mass instead. Brutal denial was the answer. You MUST celebrate, or attend, this new rite, and you cannot have the old one, it's forbidden. So, the faithful Catholic was left with a conundrum - either apparent disobedience or cooperate in the new rite, which savours of heresy because it was explicitly designed to be approved of by heretics.<br /><br />Those who chose apparent disobedience were vindicated, forty years later, by Jospeh Ratzinger, Benedict XVI, who stated officially that the old mass had never legally been forbidden. In the mean time we were accused, repeatedly, tirelessly, of schism. Schism, of course, is not a problem any more, except for us. Even pagans could use Catholic churches for their worship, as they did famously in Assisi in '86, but those who wanted the old mass could not. That was still evil, schismatic, and against the Catholic Church, but nothing else was evil, schism was no longer a thing (unless you were a trad), and of course the official line was that the correct approach to every enemy of the Church was to focus on what unites, not on differences. Only trads are excepted. And our crime? Failing to accept the new mass. That's it. We've not even ostensibly done anything else wrong. We simply have failed to adopt the new religion. We're faithful. <br /><br />So, if I refrain from saying what I don't like about the new mass, so that Trent's anathemas no longer apply, am I OK attending only the old mass? (Of course, the entire proposition is the purest hypocrisy, because the anathemas against the Orthodox were explicitly lifted by Paul VI, and no anathemas are ever issued against anybody else, but apparently anathemas do still apply - exclusively to trads.)Aquinianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09539991968870301779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23258907038776077452019-05-20T21:18:07.233-07:002019-05-20T21:18:07.233-07:00Part II
>Of course more catechesis is great; i...Part II<br /><br />>Of course more catechesis is great; it produces better fighting fit sheep. Ultimately though, it will be hard to keep out of the jaws of the wolf without good shepherds. <br /><br />Except as I pointed out clergy are selected from the Sheep as are the Shepards. Nobody is born Pope or a Priest. <br /><br />>Externals are the expressions of doctrine or its belittling, as the case may be. You may be able to soldier on with external practices that are out of kilter with doctrine, but generally people end up believing according to the way they act. Children, especially, understand in an instant if something is being taken seriously or not by the people around them and draw their own conclusions accordingly. <br /><br />Such seriousness comes from the weight of doctrinal truth and knowing it. If I didn't know the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of our Lord then no pretty liturgy can teach me that.<br /><br />>The statement about Pope Benedict concerns communion in the hand, not the Novus Ordo per se. Have another look.<br /><br />I am concerned here about the extremist attacks on the Novus Ordo. Go re-read my head butting with Aquinian. Stop trying to side track me with petty issues.<br /><br />It's sectarian and a sign of crisis when people start launching anathemas at each other. It's not your job to excommunicate anybody. The Church will be doing a lot of that in the not-too-distant future no doubt, but it's not our job.<br /><br />>The liturgical revolution was a confirmation of the victory of those who wanted to mess around with doctrine. It was also their strategy for "never going back". One can mitigate the problem here but this liturgy does seem extremely resistant to your kind of experience at Mass. <br /><br />Quite ironic your implicit call for peace and not throwing around Anathamas considering the subject matter of this post above. Why do Trads have no self reflection?<br /><br />> They are full of false ideas it's true, but worshipping in the Catholic way and venerating Our Lady are things that will not be ignored. <br /><br />If false ideas come from the far left or right I will show them no pity. I will war against the Women's Ordination Movement and the SSPX or SSPV with equal fury.<br /><br />Reactionary trads are as harmful as liberals. Starting with their inconsistency. <br /><br />>The liturgical revolution was a confirmation of the victory of those who wanted to mess around with doctrine. It was also their strategy for "never going back". One can mitigate the problem here but this liturgy does seem extremely resistant to your kind of experience at Mass. <br /><br />Yet I have lived it and it is as easy as falling in love. It only takes fidelity. On the other hand the opposite extreme on your side was born in schism and formal disobedience(SSPX) which forever taints much of what passes itself off as "Traditionalism".<br /><br />Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73105046895312802272019-05-20T21:17:46.025-07:002019-05-20T21:17:46.025-07:00>The anathemas at Trent applied to the Protesta...>The anathemas at Trent applied to the Protestants who didn't like traditional liturgy. That was the context.<br /><br />Clearly not. "If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses are incentives to impiety rather than offices of piety, let him be anathema."<br /><br />Where does the text limit this to the Pius V liturgy? It doesn't it applies to all liturgies promulgated lawfully by the Church at all times.<br /><br />>If the Eastern orthodox had chucked out their liturgy as well as doctrine, there would be almost nothing of them left now.<br /><br />They have a rebel women's ordination movement. They have female deaconesses. Not changing their liturgy didn't stop any of this but I bet NOT teaching doctrine to laymen and relying on the Eight Sacrament of Holy Osmosis did. Those are just the facts.<br /><br />>The Church isn't a democracy. <br /><br />Unless Rome rules against Trad extremists then it becomes suspiciously pseudo democratic in their eyes....<br /><br />>No amount of education of the laity will stop a disaster if the clergy are determined to jump overboard. <br /><br />Your clericalism is noted. An Educated laity by definition produce orthodox clergy since it is from the ranks of the laity they are recruited. They are not grown in clone vats good sir.<br /><br />>Religion is worship, love and submission to God who reveals. For many centuries Catholics have done that, often without detailed knowledge of the Faith and they did well.<br /><br />Yes God can bring good out of evil but enforced ignorance is evil. A detailed knowledge of the Faith is mandated. You seem to underestimate the beauty of such knowledge? I thought you Trads where all about the True and the Beautiful? Bad form. <br /><br />Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62791813660092422822019-05-20T17:15:56.297-07:002019-05-20T17:15:56.297-07:00The anathemas at Trent applied to the Protestants ...The anathemas at Trent applied to the Protestants who didn't like traditional liturgy. That was the context.<br /><br />The victory of the liberals of the Rhine countries and the Americanists at Vatican II was followed up by liturgical change which was supposed to reflect it, as well as obvious liturgical abuses which remain the norm in so many places.<br /><br />If the Eastern orthodox had chucked out their liturgy as well as doctrine, there would be almost nothing of them left now. They are full of false ideas it's true, but worshipping in the Catholic way and venerating Our Lady are things that will not be ignored. <br /><br />The Church isn't a democracy. No amount of education of the laity will stop a disaster if the clergy are determined to jump overboard. Religion is worship, love and submission to God who reveals. For many centuries Catholics have done that, often without detailed knowledge of the Faith and they did well. Of course more catechesis is great; it produces better fighting fit sheep. Ultimately though, it will be hard to keep out of the jaws of the wolf without good shepherds. <br /><br />Externals are the expressions of doctrine or its belittling, as the case may be. You may be able to soldier on with external practices that are out of kilter with doctrine, but generally people end up believing according to the way they act. Children, especially, understand in an instant if something is being taken seriously or not by the people around them and draw their own conclusions accordingly. <br /><br />The statement about Pope Benedict concerns communion in the hand, not the Novus Ordo per se. Have another look.<br /><br />It's sectarian and a sign of crisis when people start launching anathemas at each other. It's not your job to excommunicate anybody. The Church will be doing a lot of that in the not-too-distant future no doubt, but it's not our job.<br /><br />The liturgical revolution was a confirmation of the victory of those who wanted to mess around with doctrine. It was also their strategy for "never going back". One can mitigate the problem here but this liturgy does seem extremely resistant to your kind of experience at Mass. <br />Miguel Cervanteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01891484277032885884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45661877925951925122019-05-20T16:00:17.371-07:002019-05-20T16:00:17.371-07:00>The anathema at Trent applied to Protestants w...>The anathema at Trent applied to Protestants who wanted something like what modernist liturgists want today. <br /><br />That is an interpretation not supported by a plain straightforward reading of the text. <br /><br /><br />>There is a crisis in the liturgy precisely because of things which have become common practice. <br /><br />The crisis is solely one of teaching actual doctrine to people vs them relying on the Eight Sacrament of Holy Osmosis.<br /><br />That can't be denied. As I said the Eastern Orthodox haven't changed their liturgy in 1000 years and they suffer the same modernist problems. Modernist existed when the ST Pius V liturgy was all there was & even if you abrogated the St Paul VI and went back & changed nothing else the problem would remain.<br /><br />>Communion in the hand and celebrants treating hosts like Monopoly money (things which can be seen in a huge percentage of Catholic churches on any given Sunday) are an incentive to impiety.<br /><br />When I learned the Eucharist is the actual Body of Christ I learned to tremble whenever I choose to take communion in the hand. Externals are meaningless without doctrine.<br /> <br />>Pope Benedict obviously thought as much. Did he escape the anathema of Trent by keeping his mouth shut (while refusing to give communion in the hand himself)?<br /><br />This is a silly statement. Where has Pope Benedict said the St Paul VI Rite is illegitimate and that St Paul VI had no right to revise the liturgy? Nowhere, indeed he condemned the founder of the SSPX and accused him of the very liberalism he charged the council. Or did you forget that?<br /><br />>Anathemas don't work very well when the Church is in crisis. Let's leave them to the Church of the future shall we?<br /><br />You are contradicting yourself.<br /><br />>If tastes have changed to such a degree in these matters, they are obviously wrong and need rectifying. One can educate, but when the outward actions of celebrants and people do not reflect what they profess internally, their minds tend to follow. This is human nature. <br /><br />This is solely because they are not taught the faith. Everything I learned about Catholic doctrine I learned as an adult reading Catholic Apologists. I sure as heck didn't learn it in CCD. They where too busy talking about feelings not doctrine. That was clearly the problem.<br /><br />>It's true that the Novus Ordo (for all its textual problems) can be celebrated in a devout way and surrounded with proper and unambiguous attitudes but this is not the case mostly. <br /><br />It is a delusion to believe the modern crisis would not exist if Pope St Paul VI never changed the liturgy. You would simply have clown Masses and Liturgical dancing and female altar servers with Latin. Nothing more.<br /><br />>Education alone to counter such regular deforming conditioning could be a case of pissing in the wind, for many aspects at least.<br /><br />Yet when I learned the content of the Faith I treated going to Mass differently. With conversion to Jesus and a proper theological formation nothing but piety can flow from that.<br /><br />> I can accept that the good will of so many will help them through this mess until the Church finally gets around to sorting things out properly.<br /><br />Here I agree with you.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80152499434655496732019-05-20T13:03:12.654-07:002019-05-20T13:03:12.654-07:00The anathema at Trent applied to Protestants who w...The anathema at Trent applied to Protestants who wanted something like what modernist liturgists want today. There is a crisis in the liturgy precisely because of things which have become common practice. <br /><br />Communion in the hand and celebrants treating hosts like Monopoly money (things which can be seen in a huge percentage of Catholic churches on any given Sunday) are an incentive to impiety. Pope Benedict obviously thought as much. Did he escape the anathema of Trent by keeping his mouth shut (while refusing to give communion in the hand himself)?<br />Anathemas don't work very well when the Church is in crisis. Let's leave them to the Church of the future shall we?<br /><br />If tastes have changed to such a degree in these matters, they are obviously wrong and need rectifying. One can educate, but when the outward actions of celebrants and people do not reflect what they profess internally, their minds tend to follow. This is human nature. <br /><br />It's true that the Novus Ordo (for all its textual problems) can be celebrated in a devout way and surrounded with proper and unambiguous attitudes but this is not the case mostly. <br /><br />Education alone to counter such regular deforming conditioning could be a case of pissing in the wind, for many aspects at least. I can accept that the good will of so many will help them through this mess until the Church finally gets around to sorting things out properly.<br /> <br /><br />Miguel Cervanteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01891484277032885884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79194704410504135882019-05-20T11:27:34.999-07:002019-05-20T11:27:34.999-07:00>No, it isn't aesthetics. It's faith, a...>No, it isn't aesthetics. It's faith, as you rightly say.<br /><br />Except it is against the Council of Trent for you to bash the authorized Rite of the Mass "If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses are incentives to impiety rather than offices of piety, let him be anathema."<br /><br />It doesn't matter if Vatican II has any anathemas or not. Trent and Vatican I do and you are a walking talking violation of their teaching.<br /><br />Radtrads are simply not traditional.<br /><br />>The new liturgy presents the new doctrine, and undermines the old doctrine.<br /><br />That is heresy and liberalism if I believe Trent and you are not Catholic. <br /><br />Basically you are a Protestant only more High Church.<br /><br />Also I note you refuse to confirm or deny that you accused Pope St Paul VI of being a homosexual based on some charges levied by a French Communist Pederast named Roger Peyrefitte who for some mad reason you believe over a Papal Saint? <br /><br />I can understand why you don't own it. You are an extremist nutter which is what is wrong with Traditionalism today. Too many nutters.<br /><br />Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61563017590484134862019-05-19T20:03:19.640-07:002019-05-19T20:03:19.640-07:00@SoY,
No, it isn't aesthetics. It's fait...@SoY,<br /><br />No, it isn't aesthetics. It's faith, as you rightly say.<br /><br />"At the end of the Day a lack of teaching the fundamentals of the Faith are the sole cause of the problem."<br /><br />The new liturgy presents the new doctrine, and undermines the old doctrine. But the root isn't the liturgy, the root is the new approach of John XXIII and Paul VI, which was no longer to present the faith as obligatory, but as a matter of opinion. This is the real cause of the abandonment of all sanctions for crimes against faith, in the 1960s. The new spirit led to rampant rebellion and loss of faith, and it led to a new liturgy that would present religion as a choice, a good choice, but still a choice. If you think it's an accident that the documents of Vatican II have no anathemas attached, or that Paul VI destroyed the Holy Office in 1966, or that priests stopped mentioning hell in sermons, think again. It's all of a piece. Liberalism.Aquinianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09539991968870301779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45236604452224946502019-05-17T08:57:45.827-07:002019-05-17T08:57:45.827-07:00>I don't think aesthetics is the main reaso...>I don't think aesthetics is the main reason people oppose the Novus Ordo,<br /><br />We will have to agree to disagree. I pretty much think it is because if those people personally found it pleasant and familar to worship with they would not complain.<br /><br />For example when they revised the St Paul VI Rite by getting rid of the old ICEL translation in favor of one more faithful to the original Latin(a move in principle I support) I actually found it slightly unpleasant to worship with teh revision because that is not how I said the Mass growing up. Of course I sucked it up rather then schism and start a Society of St Paul VI....just saying.;-)<br /><br />>but it's not necessary to go into the criticisms of its expression of doctrine which are well known. <br /><br />Yes I have read them and I read the opposite take on the matter in The Liturgy Betrayed by Crouan and as far as I'm concerned I have no good reason to side with one over the other.<br /><br />For me the problem is soley one of not teaching doctrine to people. My wife is a former Ex-Catholic and she pretty much attributed theological ignorance and the lack to doctrinal education for her slide into Evangelicalism.<br /><br />If it wasn't for Karl Keating's writings she wouldn't have had a way back.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90822248325895991342019-05-16T16:03:10.502-07:002019-05-16T16:03:10.502-07:00I don't think aesthetics is the main reason pe...I don't think aesthetics is the main reason people oppose the Novus Ordo, but it's not necessary to go into the criticisms of its expression of doctrine which are well known. <br /><br /><br />Still, there is behavior proper to the Latin rite like kneeling, and practices concerning the handling the Sacred Species (including those who should not be involved), which express our doctrinal beliefs. This culture seems to have been largely lost. It's not optional; it must return, because it expresses doctrine. That's what I meant with the comment about it being better not to have a grounding in catechesis if one wants to attend the Novus Ordo with peace of mind (in what seems to be a majority of parishes).<br /><br />As for the traditional rite being vertical versus a horizontal Novus Ordo, I disagree. Verticality has been associated with the Gothic style, but that was important only for three centuries or so (the neo-Gothic of the Irish diaspora notwithstanding). The basilica style which is proper to our rite, and which reigned supreme in Rome for a thousand years, produces a liturgy which is essentially horizontal. <br /><br />The great Roman basilicas like St Mary Major are basically rectangular boxes which draw the eye in one direction, to the front where the liturgy is enacted. Architecturally the aspect of assembly and spectacle are foremost, with room for large congregations (the complete opposite of the Byzantine liturgy). I suppose the Novus Ordo is also assembly and spectacle, but what we are treated to is very different. <br /><br />For traditional Catholics, the personality of the celebrant doesn't really register, as long as he is clearly taking seriously what he is doing.<br /><br />Most Catholics speak Romance languages which, while not making Latin easily intelligible, allows them to know without difficulty what is going on. Many of the inventions created by liturgical experts for the Novus Ordo (like the prayers of the faithful, which seems to take up a quarter of the Mass) clearly don't work. <br />Miguel Cervanteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01891484277032885884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47602578872851743052019-05-16T12:24:57.327-07:002019-05-16T12:24:57.327-07:00There is not and has never been any formal Church ...There is not and has never been any formal Church declaration that "one should have a large family" full stop. However, it belongs to the natural law that there should be, in marriage, a natural intention to produce children. It belongs to the nature of marriage that it be for the sake of children, and there is - at the primary level of just "the nature of marriage itself" no specific, definite limit to how many are good. Children ARE GOOD, they are a good of marriage, and as such, more than one is a multiplicity of good, and being irrepeatable persons, each additional person is a new good for the family. <br /><br />The limiting factors come rather from something distinct from the nature of marriage itself. These can be intra-family, or extra-family causes, both are real and valid reasons to limit family size <i>according to the natural law.</i> For one thing, nature does not intend only the <i>mere existence</i> of children, but their growth to maturity. Limiting the rate of bearing children and or the total number of children so that the parents can properly attend to the children and bring them fully to maturity is thus following the natural law: if a family's resources will not stretch to several more children's necessary expenses, or if a mother's health will be seriously damaged by bearing children too quickly, these are reasons to slow down. External factors also are applicable: A country at war, or a country which is undergoing a contraction of necessary resources (say, the country just lost a war and lost a major food-producing province), could be reasons to delay having children. This kind of factor can range even as far as the overall needs of the whole world - if we could accurately assess the implications of the population growth rate and the resource distributions necessary. Ultimately, this consideration can be grounded in the Bible: in Genesis, God gave Adam and Eve both a blessing and a command: fill the Earth. This implies a preference <i>toward</i> having children, but also entails a possible limit - when the Earth is full. <br /><br />There is nothing wrong with a Pope suggesting that we may be nearing the point where we can consider the Earth as full. Francis, unfortunately, expressed rather several unthoughtful ways of considering this and rather few helpful ways of discussing this - i.e. his remarks conform rather well to the social liberal attitudes and not all that readily to natural law and traditional Catholic doctrine on the issues. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29281211893158283162019-05-16T12:15:25.739-07:002019-05-16T12:15:25.739-07:00You cannot debate asthetics. It is purely subject...You cannot debate asthetics. It is purely subjective no matter how much one tries to beg the question otherwise.<br /><br />I have found Traditional Latin Masses tedious and impossible to participate in. At least in terms of the Low Mass where I can barely hear the priest saying the words in Latin. Also trying to make heads or tails of the Missel in order to follow along forget it. I've given up.<br /><br />Now Eastern Rite Masses are another thing all together. Far superior IMHO. They say the St Pius V Mass is more "vertical" worship and the St Paul VI more "horizontal". The Eastern Rite Masses mannage to mate both perfectly.<br /><br />>However, the best way to attend the Novus Ordo as it is performed in most churches around the world, is above all, NOT to have a solid grounding in catechesis.<br /><br />I find the opposite is true. When I started to learn the Faith on my own from reading Apologetics material and listening to Scott Hahn's talks on the Mass the liturgy came alive to me & it was the Paul VI liturgy. My first Pius V Mass was lovely because the Priest had a booming voice and I could hear the Latin & follow the Missal. All the ones since I went too where tedious for reasons I mentioned above.<br /><br />At the end of the Day a lack of teaching the fundamentals of the Faith are the sole cause of the problem. If I never learned any doctrine or the deep theology of the Eucharist or it's biblical basis I am convinced my first Latin Mass would have been just some guy chainting in a language I don't understand. Much like the Spanish Masses I was forced to attend when I missed the English ones back before I learned theology.<br /><br />But this is my experience and like I said you really can't argue Asthetics. It is stupid to try.<br />Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55084434737575532822019-05-16T11:47:53.660-07:002019-05-16T11:47:53.660-07:00Mostly. But the Arians in the Church attacked Ath...Mostly. But the Arians in the Church attacked Athanasius, and he was excommunicated for his orthodoxy. As were others like him. <br /><br />St. Joan of Arc was attacked by Church leaders. (Sure, it was on behalf of political ends, but it was done through the Church and her doctrinal/ecclesiastical powers.) Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64131229269935054992019-05-15T16:40:04.625-07:002019-05-15T16:40:04.625-07:00Are you not aware of the radical and immense chasm...<i>Are you not aware of the radical and immense chasm that distinguishes this new thing, the Church, from the race-based "people of God" (uggh! V2 Speak!) of the old dispensation? Are you cognisant of an event called Pentecost? Do you really not know that the Church is a visible unity of those who profess the same, true, faith?</i> <br /><br />If one is saved, he is saved by grace, which gives him the supernatural virtues of faith, hope, and charity. This saving grace is present in the Church and is given to us through the Church, at Christ's providential order. There is one Church for all of the saved. <br /><br />Abraham, who was accounted as saved by St. Paul, was a member of that one Body of Christ through grace and in his faith in the Christ to come. Abraham had the same unitary faith that St. Paul and St. James did, and that we do. Many of the descendants of Abraham also had that same faith, especially (but not limited to) the other patriarchs and the prophets. The faith that Abraham had was the only, one <b>true faith</b> of the Abrahamic dispensation, and it was similarly the very same faith of those faithful Israelites who were true to the Law and the Prophets and the Psalmists who revealed God's word to them, (even though incompletely). All those among the Hebrews who were true to the entirety of the religion revealed through Abraham and Moses and the prophets had faith and were members of the Body of Christ by their grace and their anticipatory faith in the redemption of Christ. Those Jews who thought they would be saved either by being descended from Abraham, or by the Law alone, were not abiding in the faith that Abraham had, and thus were not truly of the Abrahamic religion, (which is the one true religion). <br /><br />Interestingly, Bossuet used the phrase "People of God" in the 1600's: <i>“Religion, and the continued existence of the people of God throughout the centuries, is the greatest and most useful of all objects that can be proposed to man”</i>. <br /><br />It is not to be laid at the door of either Abraham or Moses that many Jews fell away from the religion they taught. The Church was founded by Christ, but He used Abraham, Moses, David, and the prophets to prepare the soil for that founding, and those patriarchs belong to His Body and are saved therein. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71686653023234075972019-05-15T15:05:30.335-07:002019-05-15T15:05:30.335-07:00Yes it's true things weren't so rosy befor...Yes it's true things weren't so rosy before the Council. However, the best way to attend the Novus Ordo as it is performed in most churches around the world, is above all, NOT to have a solid grounding in catechesis. The atmosphere, the mannerisms of the officiants, their handling of the Sacred Species, everything works against what catechesis tries to achieve. Of course it's all done in good faith and clearly people have the Faith and are so often admirable. Being cushioned from many realities by their pastors helps them keep their equanimity. Good luck to them, but dawn is coming. <br /><br />We all know what Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci thought of the Novus Ordo, and Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer's opinion of it when he first encountered it ("What is this shit?!"). However they all got pushed where they didn't want to go, and the laity were sleepwalked into new liturgy by the most stupid generation of brainwashed, trendy clergy (now in their nineties). <br />For me, the decision to attend the traditional Mass was made by my parents when I was a child. Whenever I take a peek at what goes on in the average parish, I can only thank them. Of course the Church has its dynamics and will take time sort out the liturgy, but for me and many, having to attend this mini-Mass would be time travel back to the sad experiences of Ottaviani and St. Josemaria.Miguel Cervanteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01891484277032885884noreply@blogger.com