FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
The Fundamentalist Catholic Flowchart -- a Good Laugh LOL! - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: The Fundamentalist Catholic Flowchart -- a Good Laugh LOL! (/showthread.php?tid=32420)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


Re: The Fundamentalist Catholic Flowchart -- a Good Laugh LOL! - Historian - 12-10-2009

(12-10-2009, 03:23 AM)Carnivore Wrote:
(12-10-2009, 03:14 AM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(12-10-2009, 02:20 AM)Carnivore Wrote:
(12-09-2009, 11:30 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Well, will you first acknowledge the truth that the Novus Ordo is a banal on-the-spot product, and a fabrication, and its implementation has resulted in devastation?

Nope, because it would be a lie...


Pope Benedict XVI said of abuses in celebration of the liturgy: “In the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over the centuries and replaced it – as in a manufacturing process – with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.”

You just called then-Cardinal Ratzinger a liar.

No, you did and it's offensive.

Go look up the word "context."

I take offense at you implying I twisted the Pope's words.  I'll be happy to supply the full context.

http://www.latin-mass-society.org/ratzshow.htm

It was Cdl. Ratzinger's preface to Msgr. Gamber's book on the liturgy:

Condensed from the 30 Days printing of
Cardinal Ratzinger's preface to La Reforme
liturgique en question, by Klaus Gamber,
Editions Sainte-Madeleine.

Cdl. Ratzinger Wrote:In its practical materialization, liturgical reform has moved further away from this origin. The result was not re-animation but devastation.

On the one hand, we have a liturgy which has degenerated so that it has become a show which, with momentary success for the group of liturgical fabricators, strives to render religion interesting in the wake of the frivolities of fashion and seductive moral maxims.

...

What happened after the Council was totally different: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy.

We left the living process of growth and development to enter the realm of fabrication. There was no longer a desire to continue developing and maturing, as the centuries passed and so this was replaced - as if it were a technical production - with a construction, a banal on-the-spot product.

He calls the replacement of the TLM (i.e., the Novus Ordo) "a construction, a banal-on-the-spot product".  He refers to what happened after the Council as "fabricated liturgy" - what liturgy came about after the council?  The Novus Ordo Missae, obviously.

Finally he states that the change in the liturgy "was not re-animation but devastation".

Then you go on to complain about it's context.  Well, here is the context along with an offsite link.  Please explain how it's out of context in such a way to distort its meaning, and then please supply what you consider the meaning to be.  You could be right, after all, but it's worth discussion, isn't it?  Or are you just going to charge "liar" and imply that the meaning of the quote was completely changed by removal from the context?

Let's be intellectually honest here.

It's fine if you don't like what Cdl. R says or his opinion.  Personally, I agree with his opinion.  If you think he's wrong, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.  After all, his opinion on whether a given liturgy is great or banal isn't infallible.


Re: The Fundamentalist Catholic Flowchart -- a Good Laugh LOL! - Historian - 12-10-2009

(12-10-2009, 03:19 AM)Carnivore Wrote: I'm just not going to accept some of these ludicrous premises that are offered as if they are proven facts when in fact they are just personal opinions.

Well, wait a second.  First you say it's a lie, then you say it's a personal opinion.

Which is it, a lie or a personal opinion?  Because opinions can be incorrect without being lies.  I share Cdl. R's opinion on the Novus Ordo Missae.  My belief is that it is valid because the Church says so, but my opinion is that it's a banal fabrication, and I will be happy to make that argument using both Cdl. R's words, the words of others, and standard argumentation.

Let's start with it being a "fabrication".  Was it fabricated?  Absolutely.  It was a Missal that was made by Abp. Bugnini and a committee.  On the other hand, the TLM grew organically from the beginnings of Christianity.  As time progressed from the Apostles to Quo Primum, Things that were dangerous were restricted (e.g., Communion in the hand, laity use of the chalice, etc.)  Things that were fruitful were increased.  Even the later changes were modifications to a liturgy that already existed.

Not so with the NOM.  It was designed by a committee, it was fabricated.  It was designed "on-the-spot".

To fabricate:

Quote:construct, manufacture; specifically : to construct from diverse and usually standardized parts

It was pieced together from ancient practices, some of which were thrown out in the organic development of the Tridentine Mass.  New things were also introduced.  Those are objective facts.

So, do you accept the statement that it was a fabrication using that definition of the term (i.e., to construct, manufacture, etc.), or not?  If not, why not?




Re: The Fundamentalist Catholic Flowchart -- a Good Laugh LOL! - Historian - 12-10-2009

(12-09-2009, 10:40 PM)Carnivore Wrote: I can and certainly will answer this after I receive one acknowledgment of truth.  That acknowledgment is that no one at any time at any place has ever proven that the Ordinary Form of the Mass is intrinsically "blatantly disrespectful to God" as promulgated by the Catholic Church.  Acknowledge that truth and I will most certainly answer the above question.

Here, I will be intellectually honest.  I acknowledge that truth.  It was never proven.

However, I'm not sure why you want that acknowledgment.  it is rather meaningless because the converse is a truth as well:  No one has ever proven that the OF is intrinsically "respectful to God" as promulgated by the Catholic Church, either.  If the Church made an authoritative declaration that it is respectful to God, that would be proof, but AFAIK the Church has made no authoritative comment except that it is valid and is the Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite.




Re: The Fundamentalist Catholic Flowchart -- a Good Laugh LOL! - Joseph11 - 12-10-2009

(12-10-2009, 02:20 AM)Carnivore Wrote:
(12-09-2009, 11:30 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Well, will you first acknowledge the truth that the Novus Ordo is a banal on-the-spot product, and a fabrication, and its implementation has resulted in devastation?

Nope, because it would be a lie...

Then you're just not informed.  The proof of the statement you call a lie is immeasurably great.  The amount of evidence is so vast that many books are required to contain it.


Re: The Fundamentalist Catholic Flowchart -- a Good Laugh LOL! - Scipio_a - 12-10-2009

a


Re: The Fundamentalist Catholic Flowchart -- a Good Laugh LOL! - Historian - 12-10-2009

(12-09-2009, 10:40 PM)Carnivore Wrote:
(12-09-2009, 09:55 PM)franklinf Wrote: Carnivore,

Would it be sinful to attend a mass which was blatantly disrespectful to God?

I can and certainly will answer this after I receive one acknowledgment of truth.  That acknowledgment is that no one at any time at any place has ever proven that the Ordinary Form of the Mass is intrinsically "blatantly disrespectful to God" as promulgated by the Catholic Church.  Acknowledge that truth and I will most certainly answer the above question.

This is a fundamental question. It stands on its own. It has nothing to do with the NO. The line of questioning after it will depend on your answer, however, I can tell you I am not going to try to show that the NO as written is sinful no matter your answer. You have to take a step back and answer this simple question.

Would it be sinful [for a lay person] to attend a mass [any form and rite] which was blatantly disrespectful to God?

It is a simple question.




Re: The Fundamentalist Catholic Flowchart -- a Good Laugh LOL! - Carnivore - 12-10-2009

No "delete" key?  hmmm...


Re: The Fundamentalist Catholic Flowchart -- a Good Laugh LOL! - Historian - 12-10-2009

(12-10-2009, 05:02 PM)Carnivore Wrote: The comments you so carefully took out of context were aimed at how abusively some individual Masses have celebrated since the promulgation of the OF Mass.  They are not aimed at the approved formulation of the Ordinary Form of the Mass itself.
Why would he write so specifically about "some individual masses"?

However, can you answer my question I asked three times. All it takes is a "yes" or "no" and the answer only applies to that specific question.

Would it be sinful to attend a mass which was blatantly disrespectful to God?


Re: The Fundamentalist Catholic Flowchart -- a Good Laugh LOL! - Carnivore - 12-10-2009

(12-10-2009, 05:02 PM)Carnivore Wrote:
(12-10-2009, 06:02 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: I take offense at you implying I twisted the Pope's words.  I'll be happy to supply the full context.

What happened after the Council was totally different: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy.

We left the living process of growth and development to enter the realm of fabrication. There was no longer a desire to continue developing and maturing, as the centuries passed and so this was replaced - as if it were a technical production - with a construction, a banal on-the-spot product.


He calls the replacement of the TLM (i.e., the Novus Ordo) "a construction, a banal-on-the-spot product".  He refers to what happened after the Council as "fabricated liturgy" - what liturgy came about after the council?  The Novus Ordo Missae, obviously.

Finally he states that the change in the liturgy "was not re-animation but devastation".

Then you go on to complain about it's context.  Well, here is the context along with an offsite link.  Please explain how it's out of context in such a way to distort its meaning, and then please supply what you consider the meaning to be.  You could be right, after all, but it's worth discussion, isn't it?  Or are you just going to charge "liar" and imply that the meaning of the quote was completely changed by removal from the context?

Let's be intellectually honest here.

It's fine if you don't like what Cdl. R says or his opinion.  Personally, I agree with his opinion.  If you think he's wrong, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.  After all, his opinion on whether a given liturgy is great or banal isn't infallible.

And I take offense at someone suggesting I said Pope Benedict XVI is a liar.

The comments you so carefully took out of context were aimed at how abusively some individual Masses have celebrated since the promulgation of the OF Mass.  Those Masses were "fabricated" locally and contain often time massive liturgical abuses that in no way are approved by the OF Mass.  His comments are not aimed at the approved formulation of the Ordinary Form of the Mass itself.

Where did these lamentable abuses com from?  From the same practitioners (priests) who were playing as fast and as loose as they could with the EF Mass.  The priests and their tactics chronicled here in "The Old Mass" http://www.adoremus.org/0704ReadersForum.html

The release of the OF did not stop the abuses that were already in use with the EF.  In fact with the language and physical orientation changes they became even more noticeable by the faithful.



Re: The Fundamentalist Catholic Flowchart -- a Good Laugh LOL! - Carnivore - 12-10-2009

(12-10-2009, 06:35 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(12-09-2009, 10:40 PM)Carnivore Wrote: I can and certainly will answer this after I receive one acknowledgment of truth.  That acknowledgment is that no one at any time at any place has ever proven that the Ordinary Form of the Mass is intrinsically "blatantly disrespectful to God" as promulgated by the Catholic Church.  Acknowledge that truth and I will most certainly answer the above question.

Here, I will be intellectually honest.  I acknowledge that truth.  It was never proven.

However, I'm not sure why you want that acknowledgment.  it is rather meaningless because the converse is a truth as well:  No one has ever proven that the OF is intrinsically "respectful to God" as promulgated by the Catholic Church, either.   If the Church made an authoritative declaration that it is respectful to God, that would be proof, but AFAIK the Church has made no authoritative comment except that it is valid and is the Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite.

It could never be proven because it's simply not true.  Yes some engage in crazy hypotheticals and when they do they render uniformly terrible outcomes.  That's neither here nor there until they forget their ponderings are fantasy.  Once they try to peddle their fantasy as fact it can become very problematic.