F
- Status
)
L
lovesMary
Guest
Are you sure you don’t want the prime rib?
L
lovesMary
Guest
That is an excellent point you make there. People do base much of their preferances, one way or another, on their own emotional response.
M
MrS
Guest
Want whatever you want.
But you have to eat the Lamb.
But you have to eat the Lamb.
F
Freshman88
Guest
I’m afraid he’s a lost soul.Are you sure you don’t want the prime rib?
L
lovesMary
Guest
It does look that way.
B
Brother_John
Guest
So, we’re back to “what Mass is licit and which one isn’t” again ?
I’m a Super Value Meal guy myself, but MrS “lamb” line trumps that one
Y
Your_Abbott
Guest
I think the SSPX have hi-jacked the Traditionalist position on the Latin Mass.
They have no real interest in a latin liturgy - we all know that is going no where. The Church doesn’t have priests who are available and/or interested in this. They look at you if you ask them.
SSPX needs some legitimate issue to hang their hat on. They oppose Vatican 2 and they oppose Ecumenism. And they are excommunicated. So they need something to grasp at so their followers can argue in public about something.
The Latin Mass is a false issue for them.
F
Freshman88
Guest
The Latin liturgy is going no where - I should hope not, it’s been around for centuries and will continue to be here for centuries to come.
The Church does have priest who are available and who are interested in it. I’ve been across former-indult communities and religious orders that celebrate the EF across my country. The movement is moving slow and it isn’t receiving a lot of help, but it will begin to boom, just wait.
The SSPX has not hijacked anything. This is a common tactic used by Catholics who are not exactly thrilled by the EF - they point and yell at the SSPX in order to draw all attention away from those who are licitly using the EF.
A
Aragorn1
Guest
Um, no. The Church can change the liturgy to her heart’s content but she has no authority whatsoever to change doctrine. Doctrine is the Truth which comes from God, and while our understanding of that Truth develops, the Church’s mission is to present it to the world and she has no right to change a single iota of it.
A
Aragorn1
Guest
While I agree with your position on the whole “rock music” thing, some of the concerns you express are fundamentally wrong. You ask: “Do you feel culture and society should influence liturgy and doctrine?” The answer is a resounding “No!” to doctrine, and a “maybe” (it’s possible) to liturgy. To equate liturgy with doctrine and to somehow imply that if the former changes then the latter can as well is just flat out wrong. This is basic ecclesiology here: a fundamental distinction that has to be made in order to truly understand the differences between groups of Catholics. The same failure to distinguish is expressed when you ask rhetorically, “Chant is ‘spooky’ and HMC has gotten it all wrong for centuries?” Traditionalists are known for emphasizing (and rightly so) the fact that the Church is not infallible when it imposes disciplines, liturgies, etc. A little consistency here would be nice.
A
Aragorn1
Guest
OK, thanks.
C
Cat
Guest
Thank you. I expressed that poorly.
The Church does have the authority to discern doctrine as their understanding increases, and present it to the faithful.
Paragraph 66 of the Catechism says, “Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.”
Paragraph 85 talks about the “task fo giving an authentic interpretation fo the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone.”
An example would be Pope John Paul II’s teaching on the theology of the body. This was not “new” doctrine or a “new revelation.” But Pope John Paul clarified the Christian teachings of body and sexuality for the faithful and wrote about them in a fresh, new way to make them more applicable.
I hope I am expressing this clearly.
What I am trying to make clear is that I don’t believe doctrine or liturgy should change to fit in with culture.
A
Aragorn1
Guest
Sorry Gerard, but Fr. Malachi Martin is not a credible source of information. He was a writer of conspiracy theories and apocalyptic sensationalism (Windswept House, Keys of this Blood, The Last Conclave, etc.). According to this traditionalist site (which I do NOT recommend), he claimed to have read the “REAL” Third Secret of Fatima (he made this claim on the Art Bell show in the late 1990’s - says a lot about his credibility doesn’t it?
). According to the linked article, he also said in 1997 that “everything would be over in less than twenty years”! :whacky: And how many countless thousands of his type have played that game and lost? Does the name of William Miller ring a bell?“Vast scholarship and knowledge”???
This is the authority you cite? Please, don’t insult our intelligence with your appeal to Fr. Martin.
Admittedly, Chris Ferrara is slightly more reliable than Fr. Martin at least, but that doesn’t say much. To begin with he is neither a theologian nor a canon lawyer, but a mere layman and civil lawyer (and one with an agenda at that). He is thus not qualified to write critiques of the decrees of ecumenical councils.
Then of course there is his obsession with the whole “Fatima cover-up” thing. That certainly doesn’t help his credibility. Fact is everything is a conspiracy to Ferrara, and it somehow influences nearly everything he writes.
Sorry, you’re going to have to do better than this, Gerard.
M
MrS
Guest
Well if that is your criteria…to be a theologian or a canon lawyer, you might very well be subject to some dangerous ideas.
Some of our worst nighmares have come from those two groups.
G
GerardP
Guest
Yes he is. You don’t really want to get into a debate with me about Fr. Martin.
Well, it’s plainly obvious that you haven’t read any of his books. You’ve taken two fiction books and one current events books and falsely described them. None of those books were particularly sensationalistic or apocalyptic. Have you actually read any of them? Nevermind. I know you haven’t.
Depends on what he said, doesn’t it? Your disparaging remarks don’t do anything to discredit him. I don’t understand how a little “rolleyes” smiley is supposed to support you position.According to this traditionalist site (which I do NOT recommend), he claimed to have read the “REAL” Third Secret of Fatima (he made this claim on the Art Bell show in the late 1990’s - says a lot about his credibility doesn’t it?
What is whacky is that you managed to skip over the more sensationalistic statements of Pope John Paul II at Fulda and Cardinal Ratzinger that Fr. Kramer uses to speculate his ideas with.
As far as Fr. Martin’s predictions go, He always prefaced that he wasn’t a prophet and that he was not a gambling man. But he managed to correctly predict the election of Albino Luciani as Pope John Paul I in 1978,
He predicted in 1993 that “we’ve only had a foretaste of what’s to come with what they’ve done with the World Trade Center…They’re going to blow it up.” (Fr. Martin died in 1999 by the way.)
In 1972 in “Three Popes and the Cardinal” he predicted that by the year 2000 as a cliche’ date the Church would be so changed from what it had been in 1960’s that it would be virtually unrecognizable.
He stated in 1995 that “Actuarially speaking, John Paul II has 7 to 10 years left to live.”
In 1996 in an interview with Bernard Janzen, he blew the whistle on a number of prelates who were protecting priests who were sexually abusing Children. Among the problem bishops he cited, “Bernard Law is NOT a conservative, Bernard Law is interested in one thing and that’s Bernard Law.” Virtually all of the names he cited in those interviews have since been named and removed for their sees or positions after their scandals broke.
So, yes. He actually does have a good track record.
Ah, guilt by association, another cheap debating tactic.
Oh by all means elighten us all. You know so much. How could I have been such a fool? You’ve totally debunked the myth of Fr. Martin being a scholar with your question mark and “roll on the floor” smiley.Vast scholarship and knowledge?
What a net of tightly woven logical arguments you present. And to think, I was worried that the last of the great debaters died when William F. Buckley died.
Just who is insulting who’s intelligence here? You’ve provided nothing but derision. I know this, because the difference betweent the two of us is, I know what I’m talking about.
Now how 'bout you run along now and learn something and get back to me when you have something other than childish derision to present as an argument. Okay??
- Status