It kind of reminds me of posts here that try to silence those of us who have questions by stating that we are untrusting, lack faith, are easily confused by that which is not confusing to them, that we aren’t concerned with our own salvation first, etc. etc.
That would be awesome.
You’ve got to learn to stop holding things in. Just be honest and tell us how you really feel.
Agreed.
I definitely agree. I wanted to hear the discussion approximately evenly from both sides. That didn’t happen. It’s as if the host and guest did not really want callers, and did not want them to speak much.
And/or, it took a long time to come to a painful conclusion and make a soul-wrenching choice! I’m not convinced that it was just about the internet & ‘gathering information.’
You keep saying this, but the show was not “about” Tim. He was there to inquire of live callers, to correct them after letting them speak, to clarify differences between their conclusions and what the Church says, to debate them in their facts and/or reasoning, agree when appropriate, and disagree. We didn’t need to hear what Tim’s assumptions were and previous understandings (about them) were – or at least to have the show dominated by that. We needed his expertise as a filter. We did not receive that, poster.
Yes, I think that’s fair – your correction of me.
I think I did overly emphasize the caller aspect, yes. Here’s what my expectation was: Yours. I agree.Yes, I think that’s fair – your correction of me.
I expected first, that Tim describe his book-knowledge and perhaps experiential knowledge of “rad-trad’lism.”
This is what I understand they believe, and why they believe it.
This is where they are wrong, and my support for that is…and…
Doing that issue by issue, even for a full half hour – laying it out, then offering callers to come into it. (I’ve seen that radio format work in secular programs: Guest – in this case, Tim-- is allowed to lay out info, or bio, or argument in first 30 minutes. It also makes things very efficient, because it could dissuade callers who did not have a good counter-argument, had not done their homework, etc. It’s also efficient because sharp callers with strong counter-info could address just those points that the caller finds weak.)
However, once (whenever that was) callers began calling in (& Patrick could have done a great job on announcing that, as he always does: “If you have an argument specifically against Church as People of God, against the OF as valid, against “allowances” of V2 about____, you are invited to call in and speak against Tim’s particular points, and please keep it to that.”), then a chance to speak should have been there.
The interesting thing is that my “suggested format” is something that Patrick already often does, for shorter programs. (One-hour guest.) If the guest has particular expertise, or the show is focused on just one aspect of the guest’s expertise, that is laid out, with Patrick’s guidance, in the first 10 minutes or so. Then a break, then he invites callers in (or begins accepting calls after they’re on the line).I agree.
I think Tim Staples should consult us in the future.
I think I’m saying that, according to “radical traditionalists,” (and perhaps many traditionalists), the V2 documents – without further explanations & limitations – were broad enough to drive a Mack Truck through, for those so inclined.
“Straw man” perhaps describes it less accurately than simple expediency & a great deal of luck. V2 described grand ideas, grounded in Scripture. The Church, historically, deals with grand ideas, grounded in scripture, modified by the particulars of Sacred Tradition and an existing theological system which situates those grand ideas. That’s because of the politicization of the Council by the secular media, a fact (yes, fact) which our dear Holy Father just introduced recently, although I no longer see the thread up. It was about the exploitation of the Council by the rhetoric-heavy, politically-oriented secular media contemporaneous to the Council, followed by the lack of correction of that by the Church herself.
Yes, traditionalists are more comfortable with the rationality in which the Church herself subsides, but especially because they tend to respect Church history and authority. However, that’s not all of it, i.m.o. The illusion of “no boundaries,” which some interpreted (incorrectly) V2 to embrace, is very comfortable to those on the left, and particularly was during the time period of the Council. Those, OTOH, who are well versed in Church history and Church foundations, understand that Divine Law is both freedom and “the fence” of Torah. The fence is the way into freedom. Boundaries, as all the Saints knew, allow us to access God intimately.
The poster edwest2 linked a really good article, recently (within the last week, I think), on how the Left also does not have much of a biological posterity, not surprisingly. It was some historical perspective on what went wrong post-Council, and how we got to where we are now. I don’t see it now, but maybe I’m not looking in the right place.
The Church says we must not trust our feelings exclusively for anything spiritual. We bring our feelings to prayer, when those feelings disconcert us, and we use objective aids – not just subjective – to know what we should do with those feelings and how we should act, or not, on those feelings. Otherwise, the devil will insert himself into those feelings and comfort us that we are masters of our own universe.
Quite a thorough an sysntct rebuttal to the nonsense that was being spewed on the radio program. I usually defend CAF among traditionalists, but I’m still at a loss for words for just how academically and theologically awful this show was. Oh and can we call them Catholics and not RadTrads? Because I think some of them have doctrine down better than the likes of Cardinal Daneels and his support for gay marriage.
Just in case someone thinks you are making that last bit up or is unfamiliar with Church teaching on civil unions.
I couldn’t agree more. Mockery won’t soften their hearts. Or win them back to Holy Mother Church.
"
Agreed, I felt the same way. I used to be a big Tim Staples fan, and have even seen him in person, but I lost a lot of respect for him during this show. I am not SSPX either, but I could tell he was treating the Society unfairly. I’d really like to hear Tim’s arguments against supplied jurisdiction.I’ve met Tim several times, as well as Patrick. I’m trying to put this as charitable as possible and be fair, but that show was not good, nor balanced. And to top it off, having Fr. Cekada on the air, coming across as some sort of typical “trad” example, was not a smart move (I really don’t think Coffin realized who he was as first). Worse still, they kept talking over him when he tried to answer their questions. It came across, to me, that they were afraid of what he might say.
In addition, calling the SSPX “schismatic” (I am not SSPX or sede) was in error. Only the holy father can make that declaration ( and he hasn’t), not Tim, not Patrick nor Karl. In the following segment, Tim seemed to back off that description and called them “unique”, and that they are even closer to us than the Orthodox, which is kind of a odd statement, considering what some of the post conciliar popes have described the Orthodox as. How “close” is close?
Tim’s statement of the New Mass being a “revision of the previous form” was unfortunate. I’ll give Tim the benefit of the doubt and perhaps he is just ignorant about this particular subject, but Benedict himself called the New Mass a banal fabrication. Many Catholics think the New Mass is just a vernacularized version of the old rite, which is just not true.