Problems with EWTN

  • Thread starter Thread starter netmilsmom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ceil-1 said:
Here, here!
Click to expand...
Here, here-----What. That you don’t like tradition–and take any opportunity to express it. You did make the follow statements in the charismatic thread in which netmil(name removed by moderator), myself, and others were involved in. We were to “traddie” for your taste—just a fad.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=127441

Post 20
Quote=Ceil-1

This is why I despise labels. It puts everyone in a box. There are pros and cons to every point of view. Personally, I have combined the heart of the charismatic style with the orthodoxy of the traditional style. I believe that makes a perfect combo. The renewal is all about that, and I believe it is the future of the church. Sorry, traddies, but you’re just a fad, and frankly your cynicism and contstant harping gets old to people after a while. It makes it all so disingenuous.
 
Walking_Home said:
Here, here-----What. That you don’t like tradition–and take any opportunity to express it. You did make the follow statements in the charismatic thread in which netmil(name removed by moderator), myself, and others were involved in. We were to “traddie” for your taste—just a fad.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=127441

Post 20
Quote=Ceil-1

This is why I despise labels. It puts everyone in a box. There are pros and cons to every point of view. Personally, I have combined the heart of the charismatic style with the orthodoxy of the traditional style. I believe that makes a perfect combo. The renewal is all about that, and I believe it is the future of the church. Sorry, traddies, but you’re just a fad, and frankly your cynicism and contstant harping gets old to people after a while. It makes it all so disingenuous.
Click to expand...
were a fad W.H.???:eek:
Well that is a new one on me!
 
Karin said:
were a fad W.H.???:eek:
Well that is a new one on me!
Click to expand...
Yup----just a fad. It seems–to her–it will not be soon enough–till we are all are phased out. We’ve one foot in the grave.
 
netmil(name removed by moderator) said:
Thank you whosebob!
I was part of a traditional Catholic homeschooling group that had a huge FIT that Donut Man was being aired on EWTN. It was a PROTESTANT show. Now I watched it and saw nothing anti-Catholic. No it wasn’t “My Little Angels” with nuns and priest puppets but it was fun and my kids loved it.

Now, the man who is the “Donut Man” converted and is Catholic!

I was wondering if the EWTN thing is just a bit too far.
I think it may be.
Click to expand...
I bet he used to be a member of the church of Christ, Alexander movement. He came to our old church in North Richland Hills.

Oh. Hi. TNT. It’s Dwayne and Dawn.
 
Let me pose a question. :hmmm:

Do you think there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church?

Answer honestly.:getholy:
 
mdstanzel said:
Let me pose a question. :hmmm:

Do you think there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church?

Answer honestly.:getholy:
Click to expand...
Man, are you out to get people banned?😉
You are full of loaded questions tonight:)
“Outside the Church there is no salvation”, we mean that those who through their own grave fault do not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church, or knowing it, refuse to join it, cannot be saved.
Does that answer your question?😉
 
mdstanzel said:
Let me pose a question. :hmmm:

Do you think there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church?

Answer honestly.:getholy:
Click to expand...
Yes, I honestly do. That doesn’t, however, mean that no one who is not a formal member of the Catholic Church isn’t saved. It means that the Church is utterly necessary to salvation, must exist FOR salvation, in the normative, objective manner, to be possible. I don’t know who makes it to Heaven, apart from the declared Saints. I don’t know that I’m articulating this well, but I don’t believe, for example, that my grandmother, a devout Baptist who loved Jesus, is in Hell. I do believe, however, that if a Baptist came to believe in the teachings and truth of the Catholic Church and failed to enter, well, that would be a dangerous position to be in.
 
Netmil(name removed by moderator):

I personally think that Christopher Ferraro has fallen into the error of accquainting “modern” or “contemporary” with “modernism,” which again is a very specific heresy. I don’t think EWTN is guilty of modernism, even moderately.

See, I know Mother Angelica switched to the “traditional” habit, from the modified habit they wore before. If she hadn’t, some people, such as CF, would view that as “modernism.” It isn’t. Rock music at mass is modern, not “modernism” (it also isn’t a good idea). Saying that one religion is as good as another, truth is relative or subjective, etc., THAT’S “modernism.”
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Netmil(name removed by moderator):

I personally think that Christopher Ferraro has fallen into the error of accquainting “modern” or “contemporary” with “modernism,” which again is a very specific heresy. I don’t think EWTN is guilty of modernism, even moderately.

See, I know Mother Angelica switched to the “traditional” habit, from the modified habit they wore before. If she hadn’t, some people, such as CF, would view that as “modernism.” It isn’t. Rock music at mass is modern, not “modernism” (it also isn’t a good idea). Saying that one religion is as good as another, truth is relative or subjective, etc., THAT’S “modernism.”
Click to expand...
I’ve never seen EWTN, as I haven’t subscribed to television since 1993. But I know what Pope St. Pius X says in his Oath Against Modernism:

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact—one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history—the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
 
paramedicgirl said:
I’ve never seen EWTN, as I haven’t subscribed to television since 1993. But I know what Pope St. Pius X says in his Oath Against Modernism:

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact—one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history—the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
Click to expand...
Right, what’s your point?

Look back 3rd post by Netmil(name removed by moderator). This is an interview with Christopher Ferraro, a radical traditionalist. Aside from the comment about a Hebrew community within the Catholic Church (I don’t what that refers to), CF sites AS the heresy of modernism two things that are patently NOT:
  1. Rock music: A bad idea, inappropriate, but not the heresy of modernism. Gregorian chant wasn’t a part of the absolute and immutable truth preached by the Apostles (come to that, neither was a monstrance), so a type of music isn’t out of hand modernism, unless the lyrics contain that heresy (tune is simply sound).
  2. The NO Mass itself: Here, HE speaks of it as a giving into the Protestant heretics. YOU cite the above, right? Let’s take Latin (I know CF objecs to the venaculart). The original liturgical celebrations were in Greek. The switch to Latin happened about 300 AD, 3 centuries AFTER the Apostles died. By the logic of above, if the Church DIDN’T posess the authority to order her sacraments and the liturgical rites around them (which she assuredly does), then the orignal switch to Latin was an exercise in the heresy of modernism, wasn’t it? " The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way." (emphasis mine). Did the apostles preach immutably that it had to be Latin, assuming that we are to believe with CF that the Church FINALLY gave into the heretical reformers of the 15th Century and allowed the venacular? No. If we continue with the things that the reformers happened to demand and which we have now in the NO Mass, like communion in the hand (original to the Apostolic Age) or communion under both species (original to the Apostolic Age, indeed, this didn’t finally end until the 1400s), I’m pretty sure those don’t fall under the heresy that Pope St. Pius X condemns (he might have had a problem with them, but they aren’t “modernism” as the Church understands modernism). Yet Ferraro maintains that they are “modernism.” Again, “modernism” is pretty specific and it has a great deal to do with scriptural analysis and the nature of revelation. And these are not things that EWTN dreamed up, these are things that the Church allows and permits. And the Church cannot be guilty of any heresy nor lead the faithful into any heresy through her rites, as CF appears to be maintaining.
 
This is exactly the point that I made on other posts. I would love to know the school of logic that some of you folks attended? 🙂 I took Logic in the seminary and I hope it wasn’t the heretical logic that seems to be prevalent in today’s society. Some of the arguments on this board resemble this AWFUL syllogism that I designed to show illogical thinking:

my logic teacher is a priest,
he is a logic teacher,
he is a spiritual director,
he’s gay,
he made a pass on me,
he represents Christ,
therefore, logically Christ must me gay.

This is NOT correct thinking. It appears that some of the arguments made on this board imply that the Majesterium of the Church is wrong or at least misunderstood by the leaders since Pope Pius X. That’s why some have elected a “new Pope” or started other “new” catholic churches and claim to be the authentic Church. Why is it when things don’t go our way we push God or at least His appointed driver and guides over from steering the ship and try to take over? God must not know what he’s doing. Humans do not like change much in the same as wild animals do not like change or what appears to be change. What about divine revelation (see the Catholic Encyclopedia newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm)??)

If one is a member of the Church that consist of the Majesterium, Tradition and Scripture (MTS), does not submit to the Church with the MTS, then one places oneself outside the Church and the MTS. That is a personal choice not led by the Church. And by choice one risk one’s own soul by choice. I’m sure someone could improve this argument, but this will still suffice for now to make a point.

The logic used by some of the Catholic brethren is similar to those arguments made by the Church of Christ [Alexander Campbell’s restoration project]. To get around all the things that his apostles claim one must believe the basic principle that the “real” church went underground shortly after the day of Pentecost and did not emerge publicly again until the mid 1800’s. How convenient and illogical. I tortured myself under this out of love for my wife for 17 years. I was frankly so tired of all this non-sense about Latin Mass, salvation outside the church, etc. The Church teaches that those non-Catholics that are saved are in spite of their beliefs are saved through the Church. Look at the Chaplet of Divine Mercy, which is one of the reasons my wife is converting from the Church of Christ. And her father was a bishop in that denomination even thought claim there is only one church and that church is the, you guessed it, the Church of Christ. It’s funny how we can get some things right but mess up the others when we mess around with God’s plan.

What are some of your thoughts on this. BTW EWTN helped me come back to the Catholic Church and played a strong role in tearing a part the lies told to my wife about Catholicism. Now I fear that these arguments within the Church will cause her to run again.
 
40.png
mdstanzel:
It appears that some of the arguments made on this board imply that the Magisterium of the Church is wrong or at least misunderstood by the leaders since Pope Pius X.

If one is a member of the Church that consist of the Magisterium, Tradition and Scripture (MTS), and does not submit to the Church with the MTS, then one places oneself outside the Church and the MTS. That is a personal choice not led by the Church
Click to expand...
Excellent post, md. Now how on earth do we convince the naysayers who know more than the Church?
 
Joysong said:
Excellent post, md. Now how on earth do we convince the naysayers who know more than the Church?
Click to expand...
I dont think that anybody is saying that** they** know more than the Church…
I don’t see why all us traditional minded and orthodox Catholics cannot just get along enough to see the real problems that still exist instead of nitpicking and trying to be more trad than everyone else.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Walking_Home said:
Here, here-----What. That you don’t like tradition–and take any opportunity to express it. You did make the follow statements in the charismatic thread in which netmil(name removed by moderator), myself, and others were involved in. We were to “traddie” for your taste—just a fad.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=127441

Post 20
Quote=Ceil-1

This is why I despise labels. It puts everyone in a box. There are pros and cons to every point of view. Personally, I have combined the heart of the charismatic style with the orthodoxy of the traditional style. I believe that makes a perfect combo. The renewal is all about that, and I believe it is the future of the church. Sorry, traddies, but you’re just a fad, and frankly your cynicism and contstant harping gets old to people after a while. It makes it all so disingenuous./COLOR]
A fad that has been around for two thousand years. My kind of fad! 😃
Click to expand...
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Look back 3rd post by Netmil(name removed by moderator). This is an interview with Christopher Ferraro, a radical traditionalist. Aside from the comment about a Hebrew community within the Catholic Church (I don’t what that refers to), CF sites AS the heresy of modernism two things that are patently NOT:
Click to expand...
Honestly, my friend, I was just quoting the post above that referenced the book. That was the first I had seen of it.
I love EWTN and wondered why others didn’t.
 
netmil(name removed by moderator) said:
Honestly, my friend, I was just quoting the post above that referenced the book. That was the first I had seen of it.
I love EWTN and wondered why others didn’t.
Click to expand...
Oh, I know you were. But that’s interview you quoted IS very representative of some “traditionalist” views. I thought it was very germane to your original question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top