T
Tradcat89
Guest
I have heard of “Inside the Vatican”, “Ennoy” and “On This Rock” and I was wondering if any of you could give me some feedback on them or if you have other suggestions.
- Status
A
aimee
Guest
I don’t know about the first but This Rock and Envoy are good mags …have a lot about not only apologics but evangelizing (sp?)
maybe others can say more…Also, Crisis is a good one.
C
csr
Guest
I am very enthusiastic about The Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture, which I find does a very fine job at addressing the subject of its subtitle. I’m always happy to read about the Mass, but there are the other sacraments to worry about as well: what I especially enjoy is the efforts to provide articles that address other topics. For example, in the spring '04 issue, there are articles about Eamon de Valera and Evelyn Waugh. There is an article about the Church and the rise of science, and one about the merits of the Douay Bible. There is a section about homeschooling. There’s a great article about spiritual books which mentioned two books in particular, which I obtained and which have proved to be truly excellent: This Tremendous Lover (Fr. Boylan) and All for Jesus or, The Easy ways of Divine Love (Fr. Faber). There’s an article about Kierkegaard, and one about Malta. All of that is in one issue.
I have recently bought a subscription to the Saint Austin Review. It looks like they do a good job of doing the same thing, i.e. trying to cover the value of catholicity in understanding and developing culture. I haven’t received a copy yet but they have sample articles online.
I subscribe to Crisis but I’m not very impressed with it. These more modernist publications are compromised, to my reading: for example a recent Crisis issue had a lead article about a problem with faithful young Catholics divorcing. The oxymoron will be left unstated. I’m just not impressed with the Catholics who attempt to recognize a problem in the Church while trying still to ingratiate themselves. I will let that subscription lapse. I subscribe to the New Oxford Review, but I’m not terribly interested in constant talk of the Mass, the Mass, the Church, the Church: the Church has been horribly infected, I know that, and I don’t want always to think about it.
I have recently bought a subscription to the Saint Austin Review. It looks like they do a good job of doing the same thing, i.e. trying to cover the value of catholicity in understanding and developing culture. I haven’t received a copy yet but they have sample articles online.
I subscribe to Crisis but I’m not very impressed with it. These more modernist publications are compromised, to my reading: for example a recent Crisis issue had a lead article about a problem with faithful young Catholics divorcing. The oxymoron will be left unstated. I’m just not impressed with the Catholics who attempt to recognize a problem in the Church while trying still to ingratiate themselves. I will let that subscription lapse. I subscribe to the New Oxford Review, but I’m not terribly interested in constant talk of the Mass, the Mass, the Church, the Church: the Church has been horribly infected, I know that, and I don’t want always to think about it.
M
MrS
Guest
A very strong second on the Latin Mass… very good.
Sometimes NOR is good… all text, little ads, less pictures etc.
Sometimes blunt, but we need some of that.
MrS
P
pforrester
Guest
Crisis is a very good magazine too. Any one know about l’Oservator Romano or something like that?
T
Tradcat89
Guest
Is THE LATIN MASS: A JOURNAL OF CATHOLIC CULTURE the same as “The Latin Mass” magazine? Just wondering. If it isn’t you might want to check into that one…its really good also. Thanks for all the suggestions!!!
K
krazykatlady
Guest
Yes, it is the same magazine and I always read it cover to cover. Great magazine!
M
Monicathree
Guest
Envoy is a great magazine!!!
S
seeker63
Guest
Wow, I’d really enjoy reading that issue of “Latin Mass.” I’ve been wondering about Catholic magazines myself. I’ve not seen any in our local Catholic bookstore, Church bookstore, independent bookstores, Barnes and Noble, Borders, etc. I’d really like to find some good ones to subscribe to.
C
csr
Guest
By the way, I keep getting an advert (I have two of them) from The Latin Mass offering a discount on a subscription and a copy of The Passion of the Christ on DVD or video. I guess the offer might be on their website as well. It’s for renewals, extensions, or subscriptions: for $70 they’ll give you a free copy of the DVD/movie, and three years of the magazine. It sounds a pretty good deal. So, if you’re interested.
There’s another magazine I like, The Angelus, which you will probably be afraid to subscribe to because it’s published by the Society of St. Pius X, or SSPX, a group which many people suppose to be in schism. The magazine is a tremendous value, offering great analysis and investigative research. For example, in Feb-March '04, there was an article published that sought to trace the origins and nature of Jewish-Christian syncretism, focusing on articles, Church publications, and Vatican II. It addresses and helps to explain certain problems that many of us have noticed in the Church, such as the historical revisionism that has been characteristic of the past 30 years or more. The article argues that there is a drive on to create a Noaic religion, reinterpret the Trinity, and continue to suppress Catholic spirituality and liturgy. The fact is that analysis of this kind is extremely helpful and important.
The Angelus addresses other kinds of issues as well. For example, in the same issue there is an article that describes “Hellish Holland”, and how the rationalist notion of religion as an expression of culture (rather than being, in the case of Catholicism, the truth that gives rise to culture) is gradually asphyxiating catholicity in that country. “In Holland, proselytism is a form of terrorism against the freedom of conscience.” (Emphasis in original). The SSPX finds that it is having more difficulty than the Novus Ordo Church, because the SSPX staunchly posits Catholicism as truth, whereas ecumenism has meant a broad abdication. Also the Novus Ordo Church is collapsing there, and is too busy destroying churches and condensing parishes to spend much time proclaiming the actual Truth.
In April '04 an article (“Modernist Tactics According to Pascendi Gregis”) addresses the subterfuges of the rationalist enemy.
More commonplace publications like Crisis or Envoy simply don’t have the guts, or even, frankly, the knowledge base, to evaluate the circumstances of the Church today. For these more modernist publications, the Church effectively began only 40 years ago, and they are heavily compromised as a result.
There’s another magazine I like, The Angelus, which you will probably be afraid to subscribe to because it’s published by the Society of St. Pius X, or SSPX, a group which many people suppose to be in schism. The magazine is a tremendous value, offering great analysis and investigative research. For example, in Feb-March '04, there was an article published that sought to trace the origins and nature of Jewish-Christian syncretism, focusing on articles, Church publications, and Vatican II. It addresses and helps to explain certain problems that many of us have noticed in the Church, such as the historical revisionism that has been characteristic of the past 30 years or more. The article argues that there is a drive on to create a Noaic religion, reinterpret the Trinity, and continue to suppress Catholic spirituality and liturgy. The fact is that analysis of this kind is extremely helpful and important.
The Angelus addresses other kinds of issues as well. For example, in the same issue there is an article that describes “Hellish Holland”, and how the rationalist notion of religion as an expression of culture (rather than being, in the case of Catholicism, the truth that gives rise to culture) is gradually asphyxiating catholicity in that country. “In Holland, proselytism is a form of terrorism against the freedom of conscience.” (Emphasis in original). The SSPX finds that it is having more difficulty than the Novus Ordo Church, because the SSPX staunchly posits Catholicism as truth, whereas ecumenism has meant a broad abdication. Also the Novus Ordo Church is collapsing there, and is too busy destroying churches and condensing parishes to spend much time proclaiming the actual Truth.
In April '04 an article (“Modernist Tactics According to Pascendi Gregis”) addresses the subterfuges of the rationalist enemy.
More commonplace publications like Crisis or Envoy simply don’t have the guts, or even, frankly, the knowledge base, to evaluate the circumstances of the Church today. For these more modernist publications, the Church effectively began only 40 years ago, and they are heavily compromised as a result.
K
keith2002
Guest
I would not suggest reading anything associated with teh SSPX. While their publications do in fact have some articles of value it’s simply too much work to have to sift through the mis-information they put forth most of the time.
D
Debbie
Guest
I enjoy CRISIS, The Latin Mass, and Faith & Family.
Debbie
Debbie
C
cmcruz
Guest
My husband and I have subscribed to This Rock and Crisis magazines, and we have found them both to be trustworthy (orthodox) and full of interesting articles. Crisis deals with more political issues than This Rock, which is more interested in (as others have mentioned) apologetics. That said, however, both carry articles of interest to a variety of people–not just politics or apologetics buffs.
We also subscribe to the National Catholic Register, which although a newspaper rather than a magazine, has a good mix of current events articles and general interest columns.
I too would not subscribe to a publication of SSPX–I am sure they have plenty of valuable information to share, but I like to know that my magazine writes from an orthodox perspective that is in line with the current Pontiff. I am not “afraid” of SSPX, but I consider it more prudent to choose other publications in which I can be more confident. (And, by the way, my husband and I do attend an indult Tridentine Mass.)
(P.S. Also in response to csr: I too was a bit put off by the Crisis cover story on faithful young Catholics divorcing–especially since I am a newly-married “faithful young Catholic” who would never consider divorce! But having read the article, I think the oxymoron of the headline was fairly intentional–these are young couples who have studied the theology of marriage and the body so “faithfully” that their expectations became unrealistic. The headline seemed to suggest, though, that divorce can be a valid alternative for such couples. Perhaps they could have reworded it! Just a thought.)
We also subscribe to the National Catholic Register, which although a newspaper rather than a magazine, has a good mix of current events articles and general interest columns.
I too would not subscribe to a publication of SSPX–I am sure they have plenty of valuable information to share, but I like to know that my magazine writes from an orthodox perspective that is in line with the current Pontiff. I am not “afraid” of SSPX, but I consider it more prudent to choose other publications in which I can be more confident. (And, by the way, my husband and I do attend an indult Tridentine Mass.)
(P.S. Also in response to csr: I too was a bit put off by the Crisis cover story on faithful young Catholics divorcing–especially since I am a newly-married “faithful young Catholic” who would never consider divorce! But having read the article, I think the oxymoron of the headline was fairly intentional–these are young couples who have studied the theology of marriage and the body so “faithfully” that their expectations became unrealistic. The headline seemed to suggest, though, that divorce can be a valid alternative for such couples. Perhaps they could have reworded it! Just a thought.)
C
csr
Guest
A magazine like Crisis is heavily compromised in its views. Here’s an example from July/Aug '04: “But for the renewal to gain momentum, there’s one change demanded by the council that has yet to happen: the retirement of the old clericalism, the idea that priests and nuns constitute the ‘real’ Church. Most laity still have the odd notion that they must wait for a signal from the bishop or local pastor to do anything” (p. 27).
Whenever I read or hear moderists talking, I feel like I have to cross myself to offer atonement for the blasphemy. Let’s have a closer look at the sentence from Crisis.
The renewal: What renewal? The Church is collapsing rapidly. The bishops are unaccountable to Rome or to the faith, are failing to protect the innocent from the wolves, and are constantly trying to push Rome toward ever more modernist practices that seek to diminish the catholicity of Catholicism.
The “old clericalism”: Here we have an example of modernists slandering the pre-conciliar Church. They cast aspersions on the pre-conciliar Church in order to assuage their doubts about the present problems, which challenge them in ways the prefer to ignore. There is nothing amiss in the reality that in God’s Church there are some who are closer to God than others. This was also true in the old dispensation. The priests and the virgins are closer than are the laity. There is no basis for applying progressivist egalitarianism to the Church. We are not all “equal” in the faith. We don’t have to be. God loves us all, and we all try to live our vocations. But some vocations carry us closer to God. Some lay people will end up being closer than some religious; St. Theresa noted that. Nonetheless the roles are not equal.
Laity feeling they must wait: This is very odd, as laity have done a tremendous amount of damage to the Church, together with modernist priests and bishops. In one parish I am familiar with, a very small percentage of parishioners got together with the priest and put together a “petition” to terminate kneeling for communion. These are not laity who wait for a signal; they are laity who aggressively push for the new religion that is less and less Catholic all the time. Laity do a lot of damage on all sorts of councils and other groups, helping to protestantize catechesis and liturgical practice. Priests who offer the “indult” mass are usually prevented, by lay councils, from giving sermons that extol the traditional liturgy over the modernist liturgy. This means that in the “indult”, the priest is not free to be pastor to his flock.
As for choosing reading matter, I understand your point about avoiding material that might be valuable yet is known to be from a problematic source. One might avoid the television news for this reason. Yet you need to have another paradigm as well: when something is consistently right, insightful, useful, at some point it becomes important to read what it has to say. You need to give your principles a chance to be wrong, or inadequately understood.
Whenever I read or hear moderists talking, I feel like I have to cross myself to offer atonement for the blasphemy. Let’s have a closer look at the sentence from Crisis.
The renewal: What renewal? The Church is collapsing rapidly. The bishops are unaccountable to Rome or to the faith, are failing to protect the innocent from the wolves, and are constantly trying to push Rome toward ever more modernist practices that seek to diminish the catholicity of Catholicism.
The “old clericalism”: Here we have an example of modernists slandering the pre-conciliar Church. They cast aspersions on the pre-conciliar Church in order to assuage their doubts about the present problems, which challenge them in ways the prefer to ignore. There is nothing amiss in the reality that in God’s Church there are some who are closer to God than others. This was also true in the old dispensation. The priests and the virgins are closer than are the laity. There is no basis for applying progressivist egalitarianism to the Church. We are not all “equal” in the faith. We don’t have to be. God loves us all, and we all try to live our vocations. But some vocations carry us closer to God. Some lay people will end up being closer than some religious; St. Theresa noted that. Nonetheless the roles are not equal.
Laity feeling they must wait: This is very odd, as laity have done a tremendous amount of damage to the Church, together with modernist priests and bishops. In one parish I am familiar with, a very small percentage of parishioners got together with the priest and put together a “petition” to terminate kneeling for communion. These are not laity who wait for a signal; they are laity who aggressively push for the new religion that is less and less Catholic all the time. Laity do a lot of damage on all sorts of councils and other groups, helping to protestantize catechesis and liturgical practice. Priests who offer the “indult” mass are usually prevented, by lay councils, from giving sermons that extol the traditional liturgy over the modernist liturgy. This means that in the “indult”, the priest is not free to be pastor to his flock.
As for choosing reading matter, I understand your point about avoiding material that might be valuable yet is known to be from a problematic source. One might avoid the television news for this reason. Yet you need to have another paradigm as well: when something is consistently right, insightful, useful, at some point it becomes important to read what it has to say. You need to give your principles a chance to be wrong, or inadequately understood.
C
cmcruz
Guest
I agree that Crisis, like all magazines, has its flaws—it is rare that I don’t find anything to disagree with in a publication. The magazine is not, of course, infallible. I do feel, however, that it is consistently reliable, this article included. I can’t help but defend the article a bit—not that there aren’t things I would change about it, but because I think you’ve somewhat misrepresented it. Your view that the Church is “collapsing rapidly” is exactly the view against which this author is writing, which is perhaps why you reacted negatively toward it. I too tend to be overly pessimistic, so I appreciate articles that encourage me to view the current state of the Church as the first stage in a renewal. After all, I often need to be reminded that the Holy Spirit will not lead the Church into error.
I don’t see the quote you provided from the Crisis article as blasphemous at all. First of all, the author never said that the roles of clergy and laity are equal. He just said that the priests and nuns don’tconstitute the “real” Church apart from the laity—and they don’t. Though you’re right that Catholics do not all have equal roles and will not all attain the same closeness to God, we are all ultimately called to the same vocation of holiness, and we all make up the Church in important ways.
I think the excerpt you provided must be read in light of the rest of the article. The author wants to argue that those Catholics who oppose and challenge the Church’s moral stances do not simply need more rules—they need to understand why those rules are there. Vatican II has challenged the laity not only to follow the Church’s rules, but also to know why they are in place and to educate others. These roles are not just the responsibility of the clergy (as the “old clericalist” view might be inclined to espouse), and the laity have yet to accept this challenge en masse. The laity that he refers to here, I think, is the faithful laity, like Christopher West, Janet Smith, etc. (mentioned on that same page)—not the ones who appoint themselves “liturgists” and go around demanding altar girls, training liturgical dancers, and restricting the priest’s pastorship. Indeed, those laity can do and have done much damage, but that does not mean that the laity should be passive in their faith.
You wrote at the end of your post, “You need to give your principles a chance to be wrong, or inadequately understood.” I try to make my principles those of the Church, and I don’t think it’s prudent to let them be consistently “compromised” by my choice of reading (or viewing) material. That said, I am certainly not against reading an SSPX publication now and then for the valuable information it might have. Exposure to different points of view can, of course, be healthy. But I would be sure to read it with a discerning eye, and I would not subscribe to it. My principles are “inadequately understood” daily among my colleagues at school, so I have had plenty of practice defending them there—I don’t need more practice from the Catholic reading I pay for.
(I find this to be a rather ironic discussion because in real life, I disagree far more with so-called “liberal” Catholics. Like I said, my husband and I attend the Tridentine Mass, and we write letters all the time to various Novus Ordo parishes and bishops, trying to curb liturgical abuses and the like. So my post is written with much charity, and perhaps we should just agree to disagree.)
I don’t see the quote you provided from the Crisis article as blasphemous at all. First of all, the author never said that the roles of clergy and laity are equal. He just said that the priests and nuns don’tconstitute the “real” Church apart from the laity—and they don’t. Though you’re right that Catholics do not all have equal roles and will not all attain the same closeness to God, we are all ultimately called to the same vocation of holiness, and we all make up the Church in important ways.
I think the excerpt you provided must be read in light of the rest of the article. The author wants to argue that those Catholics who oppose and challenge the Church’s moral stances do not simply need more rules—they need to understand why those rules are there. Vatican II has challenged the laity not only to follow the Church’s rules, but also to know why they are in place and to educate others. These roles are not just the responsibility of the clergy (as the “old clericalist” view might be inclined to espouse), and the laity have yet to accept this challenge en masse. The laity that he refers to here, I think, is the faithful laity, like Christopher West, Janet Smith, etc. (mentioned on that same page)—not the ones who appoint themselves “liturgists” and go around demanding altar girls, training liturgical dancers, and restricting the priest’s pastorship. Indeed, those laity can do and have done much damage, but that does not mean that the laity should be passive in their faith.
You wrote at the end of your post, “You need to give your principles a chance to be wrong, or inadequately understood.” I try to make my principles those of the Church, and I don’t think it’s prudent to let them be consistently “compromised” by my choice of reading (or viewing) material. That said, I am certainly not against reading an SSPX publication now and then for the valuable information it might have. Exposure to different points of view can, of course, be healthy. But I would be sure to read it with a discerning eye, and I would not subscribe to it. My principles are “inadequately understood” daily among my colleagues at school, so I have had plenty of practice defending them there—I don’t need more practice from the Catholic reading I pay for.
(I find this to be a rather ironic discussion because in real life, I disagree far more with so-called “liberal” Catholics. Like I said, my husband and I attend the Tridentine Mass, and we write letters all the time to various Novus Ordo parishes and bishops, trying to curb liturgical abuses and the like. So my post is written with much charity, and perhaps we should just agree to disagree.)
C
csr
Guest
I have just received my first copy of St. Austin Review, and it looks to be a fine magazine. The issue I received is focused on whether modern art is beneficial or injurious, and there are a number of articles about this subject. Also included are a short work of fiction and two poems, a piece about Olivier Massiaen (composer), and two current events pieces. There is also a piece about Teilhard de Chardin which looks at some letters he wrote to his parents. I guess I’m rather alarmed that the problem with Teilhard de Chardin is not mentioned, viz. the fact that he encouraged the belief that “truth is relative, evolving, personal”,(1) and the fact that his works have been thought questionable by the Church (2). Still, the article about T. de Chardin is of some interest.
Generally, it is pleasant to read a magazine of general culture that does not deny the Faith. The articles about modern art are quite insightful, bringing to bear issues of education, training, history, philosophy, and rhetoric, and more. And as I said, I don’t always like to read about the Faith; sometimes I like to read things that assume the Faith and work from there.
Generally, it is pleasant to read a magazine of general culture that does not deny the Faith. The articles about modern art are quite insightful, bringing to bear issues of education, training, history, philosophy, and rhetoric, and more. And as I said, I don’t always like to read about the Faith; sometimes I like to read things that assume the Faith and work from there.
- Status