S
SHEMP
Guest
In addition to the Iraq war, they are also consumed with Ave Maria University! I am going to let my subscription end.
- Status
S
seabird3579
Guest
Amen!
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
That sounds odd - who cares whether he’s “conservative”, as long as he is Christian ?
So try an alternative site 
If you know the first few words, you can search by using them
I don’t agree with their view - as quoted - at all. They are free to criticise the Holy Father, as long as they don’t pass from criticism of his acts, words, policies, or intentions into rejecting his authority in principle. Criticising him bitterly may not be the best of Christian behaviour, but it is not a rejection of the legitimacy of his status as Pope, or of his acts as Pope, or of the reality of his authority over them. Plenty of Catholics thought, and think, that JP2’s Assisi meetings were disgraceful, indefensible, and plain wicked - that didn’t and doesn’t mean that they rejected all his acts thereafter. Alexander VI is the classic ghastly Pope - he bribed his way into the Papacy; but his disgusting behaviour does not change his status. He was severely rebuked, in public, by Blessed Columba of Rieti; she told him his sins, and he admitted that she spoke truly. Both are Catholics.
The NOR as quoted above is mildness itself in comparison to some Catholics - Dante denounces several Popes in withering terms. St. Robert Bellarmine had no trouble defending his Catholic identity against those who claimed him for the Reformation, and Pius IX laid a wreath on his grave in 1857. Neither could have been ignorant that this great poet described Papal Rome under Boniface VIII as “a sewer of blood and filth”, in Paradiso Canto 27; for the poet, the Pope, and the Saint were all Italians. Why would Pius IX - of all men - honour a poet who was not Catholic but a hate of Catholicism ? There have been many attempts in the last 170 years to claim Dante as anything but a Catholic, and they have all failed, as they ought to.A Church which contains Dante, can perfectly well allow the authors of those words in the New Oxford Review.
So severe remarks about Popes are entirely compatible with being Catholic. The freedom of Catholics to be able to be offensive needs to be defended; the Church needs the people who are “liberal”, and the people who are “conservative”, however much they may irritate each other; because Christ has called both into His Church, and it is His view of them that matters.
We should defend against all comers the freedom of Catholics who have views we think hateful to express them, because they are Catholics no more and less truly than we are. I’m not a reader of the NOR - but liberty of speech in the CC needs defending. All errors in doctrine might be categorised as unacceptable opinions; it does not follow that all unacceptable opinions are errors in doctrine.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
And remember this…
“We must abide rather by the pope’s judgment than by the opinion of any of the theologians, however well versed he may be in divine Scripture” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Questiones Quodlibetales, IX:8).
“… **one does not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of others, however learned they may be, who differ from him. For however great their learning, they must be lacking in holiness, for there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope. **(Pope St. Pius X, allocution of 18 November, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695)”
Heb 13:17 “Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.”
St. Catherine of Sienna: “*For divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the [Pope]: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil.” *(Letter to Brother Antonio of Nizza)
M
miguel
Guest
Gottle of Geer:
I hope you’re not taking an absolutist position with freedom of expression. As with anything, there are limits. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater and claim the Constitution protects your freedom of speech. The Catholic Church opposes pornography and baby killing. You won’t find me defending the right of fellow Catholics to defend these things.
C
Confiteor
Guest
Truth doesn’t have to be brutish and plow down everything in its path. Truth can be gentle and patient and still be Truth. As is evident in my posts, I’m all for the broader availability of the TLM, Latin in the new Mass as was intended by Vatican II, the eradication of abuses, and I don’t condone homosexual practices or believe gay men should be ordained, but I’m afraid that being insensitive to those who either fear traditional liturgies (they haven’t experienced them or have bad memories) or just honestly prefer the status quo does not help promote Truth. And to say that we should deeply respect the persons in question (in reference to practicing homosexuals) seems to be consistent with the Truth that the Church teaches. Mean spiritedness alienates people. NOR does that sometimes and, yes, certain CA posts (maybe that is a better way to state it than “CA posters”) can do the same. They only hurt their cause especially with certain bishops who feel like traditiionalists are trying to set themselves apart from the rest of their diocese as if they were “more Catholic” or “better” Catholics. I’m betting that’s why we are stuck without a single TLM in our diocese.
Pope Benedict may be a good role model for truth advanced in a firm but respectful way: As Cardinal Arinze recently said of him:
“Pope Benedict has very clear doctrine and convictions. What many people may not know is that he is not rough. He is gentlemanly, in the sense of what the prophet Isaiah said: ‘A bruised reed he will not break,’” the cardinal said.
I’ll continue to keep my prayer intentions private.
O
oat_soda
Guest
i agree -this was a good post. besides, if we were not able to criticize the pope’s actions, we are implicitly accepting the idea that the pope is impeccable and not subject to original sin. weather we like it or not, the church is both wheat and chaff until the end of time. the world and the church will never be perfect. life is ultimately a struggle so that we can be made worthy of heaven.
the NOR is orthodox and defends all the dogmas and teachings of the church. but, they - like all traditionalists - differ in opinion from the post conciliar church in allowing open dissent and departure from sound doctrine. the post conciliar church feels that it is imprudent to take energetic measures and wants those who err to come back to the truth precisely because it is the truth, without punishment.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
The above is where we run into trouble.
The fact that I, and others prefer the Pauline Rite in the vernacular (last time I checked, permitted by the Church, in fact it’s the norm) and do not wish to attend the TLM or the Pauline Rite in latin is not a matter of “Truth” with an upper-case T! You aren’t helping promote “Truth” by being “sensitive” to us because it isn’t a matter of “Truth,” it’s a matter of discipline over which Catholics may honestly disagree and still be orthodox Catholics. I don’t believe that the Latin Rite should change the discipline on priestly celibacy at all, but I fully recognize that as being a matter of discipline and I don’t see it as being my business to persuade anyone of a different opinion to my way of thinking, gently or otherwise. And you’ve lumped these things in with homosexual practices?!?!?
M
miguel
Guest
Some good points Confiteor. But I also think there’s a fine line. We don’t want to come across as wimps either. Jesus was a gentleman, not a wimp. He displayed righteous anger. His words weren’t always soothing to his listeners. And this is because he had their long term good in mind.
I’m fairly new to the NOR. It’s like The Wanderer in tone, which I read for years. Both come across as hostile to the evils in the world, and to their toleration, especially within the Church. I like that. It’s why I subscribe…and why I give other journals a miss. (I also prefer Guinness to Miller Lite.
)
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
S
seabird3579
Guest
I cancelled my email subscription because I read about 10 articles and it did seem that they tended to have “selective” traditional views. Blasting Pope Benedict is a perfect example.
They also seem to have difficulty with Scott Hahn and Mark Shea. I wonder why, really… Some of their views “tend” toward socialist type views (though not all, of course) and that makes me wary.
Then again, maybe being based in Berkeley, CA – they just can’t help themselves. As the old saying goes, “When you’re knee deep in aligators you tend to forget that your original goal was to drain the swamp.”
They also seem to have difficulty with Scott Hahn and Mark Shea. I wonder why, really… Some of their views “tend” toward socialist type views (though not all, of course) and that makes me wary.
Then again, maybe being based in Berkeley, CA – they just can’t help themselves. As the old saying goes, “When you’re knee deep in aligators you tend to forget that your original goal was to drain the swamp.”
M
miguel
Guest
I guess I wasn’t aware of any difficulty with Mark Shea. I’ll have to look into it. But are Scott Hahn and Mark Shea infallible? Is it mandatory that all of our “conservative” favorites are always and everywhere correct? I don’t think they’d claim that for themselves.
M
miguel
Guest
According to NOR, Mark Shea went ballistic because they took issue with one of Scott Hahn’s theological ideas (from what I gather…a feminine Holy Spirit). He didn’t even bother to read their criticism, which NOR claims he admitted on his blog. What ticked him off, was the idea of criticising Dr. Hahn. All this tells me is that even people with the best intentions are human.
newoxfordreview.org/dossier.jsp?did=dossier-hahn-scott
M
miguel
Guest
Another perspective on NOR:
pblosser.blogspot.com/2006_02_01_pblosser_archive.html#113909189092562542
pblosser.blogspot.com/2006_02_01_pblosser_archive.html#113909189092562542
D
Dill
Guest
Not only that, I also believe they are “selective” in who they attack. Since Karl Keating has give it such high praises, I haven’t seen NOR attack any of Catholic Answers “neoconservative” views of any of their apologists.
G
GregoryPalamas
Guest
I’m not sure I get your point. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? A disorder makes theosis a bit more complicated. When one overcomes the sin and compensates for the disorder one may well be more holy than one who simply stops committing a sin. At least I would think so. I have great admiration for a person who leads a holy life. I have even greater admiration for one who leads a holy life despite a disorder.
CDL
M
miguel
Guest
If Karl Keating likes it, that’s good enough for me.
A
Aurelio
Guest
Howdy!I’ve read with much interest what eveyone has had to say here, yet I’m not sure if anyone has troubled to point yet that NOR most certainly did not start out as a Roman Catholic publication to begin with, at least not according to a subscription packet we got from them a month or two back.
I believe they began as Church of England, or maybe as American Episcopalians(sp?) and thus as members of what I believe is called something like “The Worldwide Anglican Communion.”
Thus, in a sense, perhaps, they are still converts.
Frankly, paraphrasing that delightful Sunday ditty, “As For Me and my House, etc.” I ride for the brand, in this case the Roman Brand.
Like I get a couple annuity checks each year from Don Bosco and his Gang, so, yeah, for ME, “los Missionarios Salesianos” – the Salesian Missionaries can do no wrong, even if former Haitian President Aristides was most likely not “our” brightest contribution to the priesthood!
And thanks to pages 353 and 354 of the Classics of Western Spirituality volumn dealing with the spiritual writings of Saint Robert Bellarmine, I likewise have the mother-of-all-Rubrik(sp?) cubes to reassure myself in controversies of this sort involving NOR and Pope Benedict:
As St. Bellarmine puts it, the “ancient enemy” approaches a dying theologian and begins to really rattle the poor man’s cage.
To no avail!
When asked by Satan “about what he believed,” the man said: “Whatever the Church, his mother, believes.”
The devil starts to lose it and asks the dying man:
“What [is it that your] holy mother, the Church, believes?”
The dying old man nails him fair and square:
“And he said, ‘What I believe.’”
The devil wasn’t about to quit, and neither was the venerable oldster.
Result? The old man trumped the devil by suddenly dying on him and gaining eternal salvation into the bargain!
St. Bellarmine states that “one must not dispute with the devil about the faith, but that it is enough to commit oneself to the faith which the Catholic Church holds.”
And, as merely a personal opinion, maybe, just maybe, this NOR vs. Pope Benedict XVI so-called “Gay issue” business just might be little more than the latest attempt by the bad ‘ole guy to ravage from the flock of Jesus Christ and His Vicar whomsoever he may, by playing upon well-intentioned peoples’ emotions.
Just an idea, and I’ll freely admit, not a particularly intellectual one!
Aurelio
R
rsagebrush
Guest
I would never cancel my subscription to the New Oxford review. It is a great magazine!
T
tgdanne
Guest
You are right on. The NOR is not afraid to take on whoever needs to be admonished. Even the pope. He is not above criticism on a topic of prudential jugdement such as this.
The point of the column about the document on homosexuality and the priesthood is that it was a serious mistake to not bar all homosexuals from the priesthood. I think they are right.
- Status