Is EWTN too Fundamentalist?

[Lermont]

My thoughts exactly. Just how do you suppose one can maintain the faith over two millennia with a minimum amount of change and corruption? Flexibility? OP might just tend a little to “gray area” Catholicism. Dunno. I am willing to discard my “personal truths” out of obedience. Maybe the truth is just too confining at times…

Christ’s peace.

Sorry to disappoint you, but not everything is black and white in the Church, nor is there always one valid position.

 

[LilyM]

Sorry to disappoint you, but not everything is black and white in the Church, nor is there always one valid position.

So give us a concrete example, just one, of where EWTN has incorrectly said that there is only one valid position on a particular matter, whether of doctrine, dogma or discipline.

 

[teadough]

One need not be a member to read the postings.

then why not bring up change in a more positive manner?

For someone who is new to the forum I find it strange that you would jump right in put down the entire site. Good luck with that.

God Bless

 

[aimee]

Sorry to disappoint you, but not everything is black and white in the Church, nor is there always one valid position.

are you a pax christi ?

 

[Lermont]

The Archdiocese, had, there’s no doubt, already invited all the media it wished to cover the event. It’s among the first things people organising such events consider. In this case it’s understood that no invitation meant that no permission would be granted even if sought.

It’s like a press conference at the White House. The President and his staff know which media he wants there and invites them. If I’m not invited, I’d have Buckley’s chance of getting permission to attend even if I asked for it.

You are now merely speculating. I can speculate too, but like your own speculation, it adds absolutely nothing to the discourse other than one’s own person opinion.

 

[Lermont]

then why not bring up change in a more positive manner?

For someone who is new to the forum I find it strange that you would jump right in put down the entire site. Good luck with that.

God Bless

Why are you changing direction on me now after I answered your question?

OK, please go back to my OP and explain to me how it is so negative.

Also please show me where I “put down the entire site” please.

Thanks.

 

[LilyM]

You are now merely speculating. I can speculate too, but like your own speculation, it adds absolutely nothing to the discourse other than one’s own person opinion.

It’s not speculation, it’s the way these things are done.

How about you actually give an answer that’s on point with the thread anyway (the whole LA Cathedral thing, though interesting, is not relevant to the question of fundamentalism in any event). For example, the question below (which I repeat for everyone’s benefit)

So give us a concrete example, just one, of where EWTN has incorrectly said that there is only one valid position on a particular matter, whether of doctrine, dogma or discipline.

 

[Lermont]

It’s not speculation, it’s the way these things are done.

How about you actually give an answer that’s on point with the thread anyway (the whole LA Cathedral thing, though interesting, is not relevant to the question of fundamentalism in any event). For example, the question below (which I repeat for everyone’s benefit)

So you say. I’m fairly confident you have absolutely no personal information on any communications between the LA Archdiocese and EWTN on this matter.

I will go far to guess (and it’s just that, a guess) that there were no such communications. Pride (perhaps on both sides) won that round.

 

[Lermont]

So give us a concrete example, just one, of where EWTN has incorrectly said that there is only one valid position on a particular matter, whether of doctrine, dogma or discipline.

Asked and answered.

 

[po18guy]

Not upset, but I am astounded at the lack of logic and fact used by people to discuss matters on these forums. I am also amazed at the amount of misdirection people try herein.

Most just seem to rely on emotion or personal opinion, or they add comments that add absolutely no value. Very weird.

You’re kidding. What a joker!!!

 

[po18guy]

TROLL ALERT!!!

 

[LilyM]

Asked and answered.

What, your blink-and-you’ll-miss-it reference to one presenter hammering Covenantal Theology, as if that one person speaks for the entire network? Surely you have something more substantive than that.

 

[graceandglory]

I find that most who attack the structure have never visited it…

Beauty IS in the eye of the beholder.

That said, I still don’t think that for the “masses,” that structure brings to mind Truth, Beauty, and Goodness. It doesn’t make me think of God, but of architecture. Maybe for a modern home circa 1980s, but not for Church.

Off topic, I know. Sorry.

 

[graceandglory]

Oh, and such a beautiful statue of Our Blessed Mother…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:The_Virgin_Mary_by_Robert_Graham.jpg

I really wished that was a joke. How much did the sculptor earn from that mannish statue of Mary?

I don’t even think that would qualify as Sacred Art.

CCC. 2502
Sacred art is true and beautiful when its form corresponds to its particular vocation: evoking and glorifying, in faith and adoration, the transcendent mystery of God - the surpassing invisible beauty of truth and love visible in Christ, who “reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature,” in whom "the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily."297 This spiritual beauty of God is reflected in the most holy Virgin Mother of God, the angels, and saints. Genuine sacred art draws man to adoration, to prayer, and to the love of God, Creator and Savior, the Holy One and Sanctifier.

2503** For this reason bishops, personally or through delegates, should see to the promotion of sacred art,** old and new, in all its forms and, with the same religious care,** remove from the liturgy and from places of worship everything which is not in conformity with the truth of faith and the authentic beauty of sacred art**.298

And someone was suggesting in this thread that EWTN has a problem with this?

Looks like they got my vote of confidence!

 

[mark_a]

Given its huge and growing part in spreading and often defending the faith, I’m beginning to wonder if EWTN is too fundamentalist and often reductionist for the good of the Catholic faith? Don’t get me wrong I really like most of EWTN, it certainly has brought me closer to the faith and it’s a great means of international apologetics, but there are certain things what are beginning to concern me – and there are now times I immediately switch the channel these days.

EWTN often reduces the idea of legitimate positions to one (when there is more than one) and often with their own strange theories. I would have less problems with them if they were humbler, gave a variety of possible positions, and let people see and realize it is not so simplistic and hence fundamentalist as they make it out to be. EWTN rarely seems to take a wrong position, but it OFTEN excludes/denigrates other legitimate positions and I find that to be VERY fundamentalist.

There is also the matter of hubris and downright meanness. Take the misrepresentation of Cardinal Mahony’s infamous letter from years ago. Whatever one thinks of the Cardinal, you don’t misrepresent him, claim he is a heretic, and tell people to give him zero obedience, etc. Exceedingly bad form. Then Raymond Arroyo spends how many pages in his book seemingly celebrating this most lamentable behavior? What was the purpose of all hubris? To educate? To warn? I don’t think so.

Speaking of Cardinal Mahony, there is also the matter of pettiness. No matter what your feeling about the structure, the building of LA’s Cathedral was a monumental process, yet EWTN didn’t even bother to cover its opening. When I asked why they didn’t on one of their Q&A forums, I was met with a very petulant “because we were not invited.” Oh, is that so? C’mon…

EWTN seems to be VERY appealing to Catholics who want everything rigidly cut-n-dried and simplistic – much like some of our Fundamentalist Protestant Brethren. It certainly appealed greatly to me when I knew even less about the faith then I do today. I worry however that many are receiving an intolerant formation from EWTN – particularly in the area of apologetics and that ultimately it’s going to harm the Church.

This may be off topic a bit, but . . . . .

I get tired of hearing Brittney, Paris, and Lindsay get dragged through the mud on Catholic radio, followed by “my heart goes out to them” or “I’m praying for them”.

Everyone with any exposure at all to the secular media knows of these girls’ struggles.

Stop calling their names already.

Otherwise, ong live EWTN and Catholic Radio.

 

[Brendan]

In all sincerity you really don’t realize just how odd, disjointed and illogical your comments are, do you? That’s easily the biggest problem with these forums.

Care to offer any examples? Or are you just interested in ad hominem attacks?

First, neither I nor the person I was responding to ever mentioned the 1987 Papal Mass, nor did we compare it to the cathedral dedication.

You said it was the biggest event of it’s kind in 50 years. I disagree. The Papal Mass there would have been far more important to the Universal Chrurch

Based on the voluminous number of comments I have seen on these and other forums since the planning stages of the cathedral, you are also clearly wrong about it being “barely a blip on the Church’s radar.”

It is. Outside of LA, or maybe So Cal, who cares?

Where did I suggest that the dedication of the new Houston or Oakland (or any other cathedral for that matter) is not as important? I didn’t – only you are trying to infer I did. Do you really think you can put words in peoples’ mouths without them knowing it? You’re not fooling anyone.

I assure you, no attempts at ‘fooling’ are being attempted.

First, we are discussing the dedication of the cathedral of by far the largest archdiocese in the USA and not “every cathedral rededication.” Please don’t think you can change the subject at hand without it being noticed. Again, your attempt at misdirection is not fooling anyone.

Yep, it is the largest diocese in one country that EWTN serves.

That said while I have no idea what a “rededication” is, I do believe that the dedication of every new Catholic cathedral in the USA is indeed programming that most Catholics would love to see and would benefit from viewing for a number of reasons.

Detroit renovated it’s Cathedral and rededicated it a few years ago. That is called a rededication, as the Cathedral, in it’s previous state has already been dedicated. Do you fault EWTN for not showing it, even though it is one of the oldest Archdiocese in the US?

 

[Dale_M]

Also please show me where I “put down the entire site” please.

I am not Teadough, but a couple of posts had me thinking you were trying to take on the whole board.
message 20:

In all sincerity you really don’t realize just how odd, disjointed and illogical your comments are, do you? That’s easily the biggest problem with these forums.

I guess this can be interpreted as saying the forums allow any post to be made, even “odd, disjointed and illogical” ones and that is the biggest problem. But my initial take on reading it is that you were saying that most posts in these forums are odd, disjointed and illogical.
message 36:

Not upset, but I am astounded at the lack of logic and fact used by people to discuss matters on these forums. I am also amazed at the amount of misdirection people try herein.

That seems like a blanket dismissal of the forums.

Lermont, as someone who has lurked at CAF for some time, you must have known that many folks here like EWTN. And you would have known that posting a thread critical of that channel would provoke them. Please don’t be so critical of people who are sticking up for something they enjoy. I don’t watch EWTN, but if you don’t like it, why not just watch what you do enjoy?

 

[Saint_Gemma]

I think that EWTN is not fundamentalist enough.

 

[po18guy]

I think that EWTN is not fundamentalist enough.

Yeah, I can see a little modernism creeping in now that Mother’s hands are resting…

 

[Lermont]

Beauty IS in the eye of the beholder.

That said, I still don’t think that for the “masses,” that structure brings to mind Truth, Beauty, and Goodness. It doesn’t make me think of God, but of architecture. Maybe for a modern home circa 1980s, but not for Church.

Off topic, I know. Sorry.

So? I was blown-away by posting #24. While that person does not like the structure as a cathedral, at least she realizes it’s a good looking building.

I have caught many people in real life in the midst of melt-down mode attacking the “Rog Mahol” or “Taj Mahony” as the ignorant are so quick to label it. Ask them if they have ever visited it and see them get frustrated. Ask them about various features of the cathedral and they’ll just remain mute. If you are truly unlucky you won’t get a factual answer, but you’ll get an emotional outburst covering liturgical dancing and other unfortunate things.

All they are doing is parroting the bigoted and obtuse viewpoints of others. If they knew how foolish they looked, if they ever visited the place they would stop.