TLM proponents "anti-ecumenical obstructionists of an evolving church"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SnorterLuster
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
netmil(name removed by moderator):
The overuse of this article is what is a hoot.
I am not a TLM person, my dear. There is no nerve to hit connected with it.
Click to expand...
It still obviously hit a nerve…
 
40.png
AltarMan:
It still obviously hit a nerve…
Click to expand...
If that is your intent, to hit people’s nerves, maybe you ought to take a break for a while. That is not why we have these forums.
 
40.png
Lux_et_veritas:
If that is your intent, to hit people’s nerves, maybe you ought to take a break for a while. That is not why we have these forums.
Click to expand...
Who are you to infer that is my intent? Is it possible that rather than offering advice to others about taking breaks, that you should possibly consider one yourself? Finally it’s obvious that hitting nerves is not the reason for these forums. Why did you feel the need to mention the obvious?

Simply because we disagree at times?
 
40.png
Lux_et_veritas:
Well, I would say they are misinformed. The CCC allows for sexual intercourse at times when the wife is not likely to conceive, if the intent is unitive. So, their position would contradict that teaching. However, they must be open to life should they concieve at a time they are not intending to.

This is one of the areas the requires pastoral discussion to make sure people understand the catechism. If they reject the Church’s teaching in favor of their own interpretation they are not much different from those who dissent in other ways. Maybe to a lesser degree because unlike ABC, they are not taking a life in order to assert their viewpoint.

Do you see large families within your TLM community?

At first I thought you were going to say they were pro-ABC (until I read the rest of your post). It would have blown my perception that traditional communities follow Church teaching more closely. However, if they are aware of Church teaching on sex within marriage and are still against NFP, then they are not fully orthodox by my definition. This would be to say something is not allowable within marriage that the Church says is.
Click to expand...
Well, I’d agree with you. Yes, there are large families and small. I also see them at the N.O. in that same Church. Now, when we go to our neighborhood parish, we are the only family taking up a whole pew.

I would agree that they are not in line with the teachings of the Church on this issue. They, however, feel that because Humanae Vitae was not spoken ex-cathedra that it is up for debate.

I was just talking to my friend last night who’s in-laws moved to Kansas specfically to be with the SSPX out there. Her sil has 11 children, the last 2 who are mentally handicapped, and the SSPX priest there gave her permission to have her tubes tied! :bigyikes: Could not believe my ears! This sounded too contrary even for them!
 
40.png
Lux_et_veritas:
Well, I would say they are misinformed. The CCC allows for sexual intercourse at times when the wife is not likely to conceive, if the intent is unitive. So, their position would contradict that teaching. However, they must be open to life should they concieve at a time they are not intending to.

This is one of the areas the requires pastoral discussion to make sure people understand the catechism. If they reject the Church’s teaching in favor of their own interpretation they are not much different from those who dissent in other ways. Maybe to a lesser degree because unlike ABC, they are not taking a life in order to assert their viewpoint.

Do you see large families within your TLM community?

At first I thought you were going to say they were pro-ABC (until I read the rest of your post). It would have blown my perception that traditional communities follow Church teaching more closely. However, if they are aware of Church teaching on sex within marriage and are still against NFP, then they are not fully orthodox by my definition. This would be to say something is not allowable within marriage that the Church says is.
Click to expand...
This is an area that is ripe for misinterpretation. The few documents I have read make clear to me that NFP is not to be used for birth control, rather it is to be used for the spacing of children. There have been a lot of threads on NFP–and no consensus has ever been determined. Intent seems to be the deciding factor on whether NFP is allowable.
 
40.png
SnorterLuster:
This is an area that is ripe for misinterpretation. The few documents I have read make clear to me that NFP is not to be used for birth control, rather it is to be used for the spacing of children. There have been a lot of threads on NFP–and no consensus has ever been determined. Intent seems to be the deciding factor on whether NFP is allowable.
Click to expand...
The way I understood it, was that one must be open to life if it is created in the process.

Maybe I am mistaken, and I’m sure intent probably has something to do with it. We’ll have to dig more into it and maybe should start a new thread on the topic. 🙂
 
40.png
SnorterLuster:
This is an area that is ripe for misinterpretation. The few documents I have read make clear to me that NFP is not to be used for birth control, rather it is to be used for the spacing of children. There have been a lot of threads on NFP–and no consensus has ever been determined. Intent seems to be the deciding factor on whether NFP is allowable.
Click to expand...
Totally! That said, let me clarify. The people I am speaking of say NFP is *always * wrong.
 
40.png
bear06:
Totally! That said, let me clarify. The people I am speaking of say NFP is *always * wrong.
Click to expand...
Ok, got clarification from Michelle Arnold upon digging up an Ask an Apologist thread.

She sums up the CCC she pasted in this way:
Michelle Arnold in above link:
In short, **just reason suffices and just reason can include a desire to space children in such a manner that the parents’ financial, physical, and emotional resources are not overtaxed. **Those who maintain that only life-or-death reasons suffice to use NFP are obliged to demonstrate from Church documentation where the Church has required that.
Click to expand...
That is precisely how I took it bear, that the people you spoke of were like totally anti-NFP. But it was a good quick look back at the CCC on the issue because I do get that if there is a desire to shy from creating life for selfish reasons, then it bucks the CCC. Only a couple can determine their intent.
 
40.png
bear06:
Totally! That said, let me clarify. The people I am speaking of say NFP is *always * wrong.
Click to expand...
Yea, I understand from what people have written in some of the threads think that NFP is not acceptable. I don’t understand it, but I guess they do. We should all remember though, the Church does not demand we use NFP, it is an option.

I picked this up on a NFP site:
The providentialists say do nothing to interfere with procreation (including NFP). The seculars say have 1.78 children. The Catholic position is neither of these but calls for generosity, while recognizing serious reasons in some cases call for more spacing and family limitation. The point is to get the couples to ask themselves are they really answering God’s call to generosity in the service of life. Kippley is correct—a good place to start is to read reflectively GS, nn. 50 and 51.
Click to expand...
nfpandmore.org/nfpreasons.shtml
 
40.png
AltarMan:
It still obviously hit a nerve…
Click to expand...
Well I guess it’s like when I was the Office Manager for a Psychiatry Office, we knew that some seniors just get stuck on an idea and can’t get off of it.

I agree with Diane.
 
So, getting back to the original question, now that everyone has had time to express all kinds of opinions about all kinds of stuff…

Does anyone here believe that one or the other liturgy, reverently presented, is superior to the other?

Does anyone here believe that one or the other of the liturgies is inherently inferior?

Finally does anyone here really begrudge us our individual preferences with regards to which type we prefer?

For all of the talk of people who do *feel * superior or act superior, or complain rightly of some of the abuses that do occur in places, I’m betting that at least here, all things being equal, that we can happily allow each other the space to worship in whichever we feel most connected to our loving God.

If I’m right, howz about we shut this thing down and go have a drink and some pizza?

Peace,
 
40.png
ncjohn:
So, getting back to the original question, now that everyone has had time to express all kinds of opinions about all kinds of stuff…

Does anyone here believe that one or the other liturgy, reverently presented, is superior to the other?

Does anyone here believe that one or the other of the liturgies is inherently inferior?

Finally does anyone here really begrudge us our individual preferences with regards to which type we prefer?

For all of the talk of people who do *feel * superior or act superior, or complain rightly of some of the abuses that do occur in places, I’m betting that at least here, all things being equal, that we can happily allow each other the space to worship in whichever we feel most connected to our loving God.

If I’m right, howz about we shut this thing down and go have a drink and some pizza?

Peace,
Click to expand...
:rotfl:

John, well said. :clapping:

Are you buyin? ;)a
 
Does anyone here believe that one or the other liturgy, reverently presented, is superior to the other?
Click to expand...
No, not said according to the rubrics.
Does anyone here believe that one or the other of the liturgies is inherently inferior?
Click to expand...
No again, not said according to the rubrics.
Finally does anyone here really begrudge us our individual preferences with regards to which type we prefer?
Click to expand...
Nope.

Now, can I have a glass of wine instead? Much to my husband shegrin, I’m an aweful respresentative for the Irish and I hate beer! 👍
 
40.png
ncjohn:
Does anyone here believe that one or the other liturgy, reverently presented, is superior to the other?
Click to expand...
Nope
Does anyone here believe that one or the other of the liturgies is inherently inferior?
Click to expand...
Nope
Finally does anyone here really begrudge us our individual preferences with regards to which type we prefer?
Click to expand...
Only you John (I’m kidding, I swear!)
For all of the talk of people who do *feel * superior or act superior, or complain rightly of some of the abuses that do occur in places, I’m betting that at least here, all things being equal, that we can happily allow each other the space to worship in whichever we feel most connected to our loving God.
Click to expand...
Amen!
If I’m right, howz about we shut this thing down and go have a drink and some pizza?
Click to expand...
I’m on low carbs and Vicodin. Sadly, I think.
 
I was so excited about the Pizza I forgot to answer.
40.png
ncjohn:
So, getting back to the original question, now that everyone has had time to express all kinds of opinions about all kinds of stuff…

Does anyone here believe that one or the other liturgy, reverently presented, is superior to the other?
Click to expand...
:nope:
Does anyone here believe that one or the other of the liturgies is inherently inferior?
Click to expand...
:nope:
Finally does anyone here really begrudge us our individual preferences with regards to which type we prefer?
Click to expand...
:nope:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top