S
Sword_Brethren
Guest
Does anyone know if that is a good site to get information on the Catholic Faith?
- Status
J
Jordan_Francis
Guest
In my opinion, yes, it is regularly orthodox in tone.
S
surgei
Guest
It’s probably pretty good. The thing I noticed was the advertisement for Fr Hadon day in Detroit. Fr Hardon was a great theologain in the main vein of the church. That is you realy couldn’t paint him as ultra traditional or ultra (other end of the spectrum).
The sections on the Fathers, Encyclopedia and Summa are probably fair in their portraiture of Roman Catholic theology and thinking. Obviously the home page as it functions as a type of news link page should be taken with a grain of salt.
One of the key things to keep in mind is the total mindset change that needs to take place when looking at Roman Catholic theology as compared to that of either the Orthodox at one end of the spectrum or Protestants at the other (from an Orthodox perspective though Roman Catholics and Protestants are two souls in the same mire of inovation). What I mean by this is that one thing that may be way out in left field from a protestant point of view is actually just keeping in line with the whole of Roman Catholic thinking.
Thinking of Fr Hardon look at his apostolate (another term for ministry in protastent circles) Inter Marifica at: www.intermirifica.org. They actualy have course work you could do.
Scott Hahn is also a good source of Roman Catholic theology. He was a realatively successful theologain and pastor at the age of twentysix when he left protestantism for the Roman Catholic Church. He now holds a PhD and teaches at one of the more respected RC universities. He has several books that you could get at a mainstream bookstore. His talk “Romanism in Romans” is pretty good. He and his wife wrote a book ‘Rome Sweat Home’ about their conversion. Find it all and more at: www.scotthahn.com.
Anechdotal stories seam to indicate that Pope John Paul II heald them both in high reguard.
D
didymus
Guest
If you ever have a query about a Catholic site, goto Catholic Culture. They do comprehensive reviews of Catholic sites as to orthodoxy, resources, ease of use. They give New Advent a good review except:
For myself, I’ve always found New Advent excellent. I’ve never seen the ads because I use Firefox w/the Adblock extension
J
Jersey_Jeepster
Guest
Ah, Didymus. You beat me to the punch.If you ever have a query about a Catholic site, goto Catholic Culture. They do comprehensive reviews of Catholic sites as to orthodoxy, resources, ease of use. They give New Advent a good review except:
For myself, I’ve always found New Advent excellent. I’ve never seen the ads because I use Firefox w/the Adblock extension
I use Catholic Culture for every supposed Catholic web site I come across. They do a great job.
Now, if I could only find a site that reviews the fidelity of Catholic Culture…
We can really get into a chicken and the egg scenario.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
the CAtholic Ency linked on this site is from the early 1900s so is outdate in many areas relating to conduct of the liturgy, church discipline and so forth, but any section on dogma of course remains reliable. In general, a good site, should be on everyone’s bookmark list.
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
Don’t read too much into their reviews. I have a hard time agreeing with a site that calls Una Voce (an organization praised by Pope Benedict XVI himself) an unorthodox group. Also, John Salza’s www.scripturecatholic.com and Robert Sungenis’ www.catholicintl.com are anything but unorthodox, but get bad reviews from them. Just because of this I’d take a good amount of what they say with a grain of salt.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
SemperFidelis,
I disagree with your reasoning here. From what I can gather all three of the sites you mentioned were given a “Caution” review. . .
As far as the Una Voce website is concerned Catholic Culture’s stance might be a bit unnecessarily antagonistic. The website seems to be quite wonderful. If anything CC seems to take more of an issue with some of those surrounding Una Voce as a movement, especially Michael Davies. They are not the first who have concerns about Davies.
And the criticism of Salza and Sungenis revolves around some of their more less then accepted beliefs such as geo-centrism. My impression is that there are only a few who have not commented on Sungenis’ slow decline in certain areas.
The reviews seem fairly even handed to me. Unless you subscribe to Sugenis’ particular brand of geocentrism. . .
I throw my vote in for Catholic Culture. I think they are quite a reliable guide.
VC
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
Re New Advent:
They are good on most things. However, use caution when consulting the Catholic Encyclopedia there. It is good for its time, but is a hundred years [literally] out of date. Especially use caution in accepting the Encyclopedia’s discussion of Eastern Churches, U.S. knowledge of these was very limited at the time the Encyclopedial was written.
They are good on most things. However, use caution when consulting the Catholic Encyclopedia there. It is good for its time, but is a hundred years [literally] out of date. Especially use caution in accepting the Encyclopedia’s discussion of Eastern Churches, U.S. knowledge of these was very limited at the time the Encyclopedial was written.
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
There is no reason to take an issue with Michael Davies, especially considering many of his views are shared or at least respected by Pope Benedict XVI. At the very least, even if you disagree with his opinions, they are still orthodox.
I do not agree with Salza’s and Sungenis’ beliefs regarding geo-centrism, but that position is still orthodox. The Church has made no statement saying it is heterodox to hold those beliefs. I believe it is quite unfair to give poor reviews of their two websites when there is absolutely nothing unorthodox or heretical on their website. There is nothing contrary to Church teaching on there, yet they are given poor reviews simply because CC dislikes their “brand” of Catholicism. Even handed you say?
I do not, read above. However I wouldn’t call their reviews even handed in the least. They seem to have a particular disdain for anything that would be considered “traditionalist.” There is absolutely nothing wrong or unorthodox with the things they seem to have problems with on the websites I listed above, as well as many others I didn’t mention.
S
surgei
Guest
Fido my loyal marine.
Davies is orthodox in thinking if you ignore the fact that under HH John Paul II the bishops he supports were excomunicated and deemed schismatic making him schismatic as well. That is, for years he has supported the work of the Society of Pious X.
I find it odd that I am the one to point this out to you.
Read HH JPII Ecclesia Dei. Especially look at paragraph 5 section C. It is sad that on the one hand JPII worked so hard to end the schism with the east and yet wound up with a schism in the west.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
SemperFidelis,
I understand you. But my point is where does CC use the term “unorthodox” or “heretical” to describe those websites?
They seem to be expressing other concerns, namely what they perceive to be a lack of balance in presentation. Being “traditionalist” or being “whatever the opposite of traditionalist is” doesn’t give someone a pass regarding how they approach Holy Mother Church. Surely you have run across “traditionalists” and/or their counterparts (whatever they are called, progressives?) who seem a bit. . . unduly antagonistic towards Vatican II, or Trent respectively, no?
If you find their reviews to be uneven, that’s o.k. I find them to be fairly accurate and informative. I for instance would recommend Catholics who spend time on Sungenis’ site to be very cautious. That is the stance of CC as well.
I agree with you in so far as you make the very valid and important point that calling something that is orthodox unorthodox, or conversely something that is unorthodox orthodox would be impermissible. So would be leveling the charge of heresy at differences that are legitimately allowed by the Church.
But, as far as criticizing someone’s brand of Catholicism. . . well we all tend to do that. You don’t exclude yourself from that charge surely?
VC
I understand you. But my point is where does CC use the term “unorthodox” or “heretical” to describe those websites?
They seem to be expressing other concerns, namely what they perceive to be a lack of balance in presentation. Being “traditionalist” or being “whatever the opposite of traditionalist is” doesn’t give someone a pass regarding how they approach Holy Mother Church. Surely you have run across “traditionalists” and/or their counterparts (whatever they are called, progressives?) who seem a bit. . . unduly antagonistic towards Vatican II, or Trent respectively, no?
If you find their reviews to be uneven, that’s o.k. I find them to be fairly accurate and informative. I for instance would recommend Catholics who spend time on Sungenis’ site to be very cautious. That is the stance of CC as well.
I agree with you in so far as you make the very valid and important point that calling something that is orthodox unorthodox, or conversely something that is unorthodox orthodox would be impermissible. So would be leveling the charge of heresy at differences that are legitimately allowed by the Church.
But, as far as criticizing someone’s brand of Catholicism. . . well we all tend to do that. You don’t exclude yourself from that charge surely?
VC
T
tvdxer
Guest
The rationale for Catholic Culture’s rating of Sungenis’s page as “yellow” can be found here:
catholicculture.org/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=1900&repos=2&subrepos=&searchid=145402
catholicculture.org/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=1900&repos=2&subrepos=&searchid=145402
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
Not to be picky, well yes to be picky, it’s Marine. We’re kind of big on that.
You don’t know the history on this do you? Michael Davies was critical of the 1988 consecrations, and wrote his apology of Archbishop Lefebvre before the consecrations. Even then, only the Bishops were “schismatic,” NOT the lay people involved with the SSPX. The Bishops were and continue to be to this day orthodox, as no position they ever held was deemed otherwise by the Holy See. The schism was not for doctrinal reasons, so their orthodoxy is unquestionable. Michael Davies played a big role in Una Voce after the “schism,” and this group is completely in union and is fully supported and revered by Pope Benedict XVI and the rest of the Holy See. Here’s what the Pope said after news of his death:
A FUTURE POPE HONORS A TRADITIONALIST LEADER
When traditionalist leader Michael Davies, who headed the International Una Voce Federation, died in 2004, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger-the future Pope Benedict XVI-had this to say:
I have been profoundly touched by the news of the death of Michael Davies. I had the good fortune to meet him several times and I found him to be a man of deep faith and ready to embrace suffering. Ever since the Council he put all his energy into the service of the faith and left us important publications especially on the sacred liturgy. Even though he suffered from the Church in many ways in his time, he always truly remained a man of the Church. He knew that the Lord founded His Church on the rock of Peter and that the faith can find its fullness and maturity only in union with the successor of St. Peter. Therefore we can be confident that the Lord opened wide for him the gates of heaven. We commend his soul to the Lord’s mercy.
cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=37861
He also wrote an article called Apologia Pro Josef Ratzinger:
christianorder.com/features/features_2004/features_junejuly04_bonus.html
So, ah, what’s wrong with Michael Davies?
I also find it odd that what you pointed out to me was wrong.
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
They question both website’s fidelity to the Holy See and hence both men that run them. If that’s not an implicit questioning of their orthodoxy, I don’t know what is. They claim that Mr. Sungenis is too quick to judge, but yet they’re sure quick to judge his fidelity to Rome. I thought these reviews were even-handed?
Yes, but neither of these websites express antagonistic opinions of Vatican II. In fact, Mr. Sungenis makes it a point to try and defend Vatican II from the absurd.
I don’t know why one would need to be cautious if there is nothing on his site that is unorthodox.
I don’t know where I claimed heresy on anybody…
But, as far as criticizing someone’s brand of Catholicism. . . well we all tend to do that. You don’t exclude yourself from that charge surely?
I guess I would not.
S
surgei
Guest
You just did a lot of linguistic jumping jacks. If not for doctrinal reasons then why? Excomunication is quite a stiff penalty for merely discaplinary reasons. It is not dealt out for anything less than heretical teaching or manifest sinful living. Which of the two did the archbishop have?
As to your posit that the Holy Father did not consider those who support them to be schismatic how do you read the following from the Moto Proprio Ecclesia Dei that excomunicated the bishops in question.
To take up your own argument and turn it against you, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was not acting in an official copacity when he made the comments you mention. As such his support for Davies could not have been seen as official endorsement by the Church. (Do you see the problem now with your private feelings public teachings falicy. The Bishops of the Church can hold nothing privately that is contrary to the Church without cutting themselves off from the Church.)
Drift: I find it odd that although I agree that as a bishop he had the right to do so, I do not agree that he should have consecrated those he did. Why? Because he did so in direct conflict with the cannons of the Church he was a part of and the wishes of the other bishops thereby showing not love and affection for them but spurning their wisdom he set himself up as lord defender of the Roman Catholic faith. Bishops do not act on their own. They are a part of the whole. When the archbishop consecrated against the will of his brother bishops he started a great deal of mess. Without this would we have Pope Michael the first here in America? I doubt it.
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
As previously stated, for consecrating Bishops without the assent of the Pope. It is that simple. Period. Rome has stated absolutely no doctrinal reasons for the “schism,” and has not criticized any of their positions.
Then bring it up with the Pope…
Uh, yes it is. Disobediance to the point of consecrating Bishops without the approval of the Pope will most definitely lead to excommunications.
It has been reiterated by the Holy See time and again that the lay people involved with the SSPX are not schismatic. I have not the time or the interest to spell out the entire history involving the Holy See and the Society. There is what amounts to miles of this already on this forum. Use the search function to read up on the history.
This isn’t taking my own argument against me. Did you read my previous post? Michael Davies was involved with the SSPX before 1988, and it was not a “crime” to do so. After the consecrations, he ceased association with them, and the Church most definitely “officially endorsed” him. After the consecrations, he was the President of an association completely supported by Rome. How many times are you going to ignore this fact? You really don’t know the entire history of this situation. Even on an internet forum I can see this. Now, let not this thread get any more off topic, as you are so fond of doing, and let this drift end here.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Yes, I find them fairly even handed. Do you wish to re-evaluate each of their reviews, or just stick to the three you mentioned? Given the number of sites they have reviewed I think it would be a bit unfair to limit our sample to these three.
In any event, my opinion that the reviews seem fairly even-handed and informative is just that - an opinion. The three sites you mentioned were given a “caution” review. This for the most part aligns with my own sensibilities, excepting the Una Voce site, since I can find nothing there that warrants caution.
Semper, I gave two examples of possible attitudes that could warrant caution: antagonism towards Vatican II and antagonism towards Trent. We could add antagonism to the Council of Nicea if you’d like. Or antagonism towards the John Paul II, or antagonism towards Pope Benedict XVI. My point was not to level the charge of antagonism of Vatican II on Sungenis (although I’m not entirely convinced that doesn’t exist), my point was that CC makes judgment calls about websites, and it isn’t always based on issues of orthodoxy (if we take that term to be limited only to what the Church proposes as sure teaching). One can be eminently orthodox and still be a jackanape.
In the final analysis, these are reviews from a website reviewer, not letters of warning from the CDF. If you don’t find the reviews helpful, I certainly understand and respect your opinion.
Semper, I think it is possible that you have nothing to be cautious about. But perhaps as you get older you might find that lack of orthodoxy is not the only thing that warrants a word of caution. And perhaps you might consider that other people – somewhat more impressionable than you, or less astute as you at differentiation between doctrine, opinions, and attitudes – could use a word of caution.
For instance, Sungenis’ views on Judaism, and the way they were expressed seemed to warrant some caution. He himself seems to have issued an explanation/retraction/apology in this regard.
You didn’t. Nor did I accuse you of doing so. SemperF, please go back an read that paragraph again where I spoke of “leveling the charge of heresy”. You seem to have taken it as a backhand swipe at yourself (don’t be so defensive!
). I don’t think I am your enemy Semper. . . try give me the benefit of the doubt. I certainly wish to give you that benefit as well. But, just to be clear, I was agreeing with you that if CC were to level the charge of heresy when there was none then that would be unconscionable.In fact, there is much that we agree on. I really DO see you point about CC, and I can see why you criticize them. I think, maybe that their project and standards are less well defined as you would like. I can understand why you would be of the opinion that their reviews aren’t helpful. You have some valid points. By and large, though, in my personal opinion, I find the reviews helpful.
What do you think? Fair enough?
VC
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
Fair enough. I guess we agree on some things and will have to agree to disagree on the rest. On a side note, post #14 was me being defensive. I did not mean my posts directed at you to seem so as well. If they did I apologize.Yes, I find them fairly even handed. Do you wish to re-evaluate each of their reviews, or just stick to the three you mentioned? Given the number of sites they have reviewed I think it would be a bit unfair to limit our sample to these three.
In any event, my opinion that the reviews seem fairly even-handed and informative is just that - an opinion. The three sites you mentioned were given a “caution” review. This for the most part aligns with my own sensibilities, excepting the Una Voce site, since I can find nothing there that warrants caution.
Semper, I gave two examples of possible attitudes that could warrant caution: antagonism towards Vatican II and antagonism towards Trent. We could add antagonism to the Council of Nicea if you’d like. Or antagonism towards the John Paul II, or antagonism towards Pope Benedict XVI. My point was not to level the charge of antagonism of Vatican II on Sungenis (although I’m not entirely convinced that doesn’t exist), my point was that CC makes judgment calls about websites, and it isn’t always based on issues of orthodoxy (if we take that term to be limited only to what the Church proposes as sure teaching). One can be eminently orthodox and still be a jackanape.
In the final analysis, these are reviews from a website reviewer, not letters of warning from the CDF. If you don’t find the reviews helpful, I certainly understand and respect your opinion.
Semper, I think it is possible that you have nothing to be cautious about. But perhaps as you get older you might find that lack of orthodoxy is not the only thing that warrants a word of caution. And perhaps you might consider that other people – somewhat more impressionable than you, or less astute as you at differentiation between doctrine, opinions, and attitudes – could use a word of caution.
For instance, Sungenis’ views on Judaism, and the way they were expressed seemed to warrant some caution. He himself seems to have issued an explanation/retraction/apology in this regard.
You didn’t. Nor did I accuse you of doing so. SemperF, please go back an read that paragraph again where I spoke of “leveling the charge of heresy”. You seem to have taken it as a backhand swipe at yourself (don’t be so defensive!
In fact, there is much that we agree on. I really DO see you point about CC, and I can see why you criticize them. I think, maybe that their project and standards are less well defined as you would like. I can understand why you would be of the opinion that their reviews aren’t helpful. You have some valid points. By and large, though, in my personal opinion, I find the reviews helpful.
What do you think? Fair enough?
VC
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Thank you SemperFidelis. Ah, the joys of being Catholic! – the Universal Church is big enough to contain unassailable Truths and legitimate differences of opinion. (Which, I suppose, could fairly characterize what you find distasteful about the CC website. . that they don’t make room for legitimate differences, as we just did among ourselves.)
God Bless,
VC
- Status