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! - Carnivore - 12-10-2009

(12-10-2009, 07:34 PM)Scipio_a Wrote: That is another question for another time....now answer the question.

You do not get to set demands in an argument.


Prove your point like I set out the proof of mine


Or be the laughing stock...."the critical thinker"

Heck...we'll remember you for a couple of weeks after you leave.

I don't care much for your tone...


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

(12-10-2009, 05:10 PM)Carnivore Wrote:
(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. 

That's a false conclusion.  

Maybe it can't be proven because we don't have the means to prove it.  First, you would have to define what constitutes proof, then we shall see if we have the means.  I offered one means - an authoritative statement by the Church.

What would constitute proof to you, one way or the other?

Quote: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.

Are you interested in the truth and intellectual honesty or are you interested in rhetoric and spin?  Characterizing opposing opinions as "lies", "crazy hypotheticals", "fantasies", etc. is just rhetoric and has nothing of use in it.

What happened to the critical thinking you were promoting?




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

(12-10-2009, 07:37 PM)Carnivore Wrote:
(12-10-2009, 07:29 PM)franklinf Wrote: It has not been proven that the NO as promulgated is not intrinsically blatantly disrespectful to God. Now, please answer the question.

Have you ever taken a basic course in philosophy perchance?

Just answer the question please...

The issue is very simple. It is only a basic principle. Why won't you answer it?

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

I attend the NO now out of necessity and no one here has said I have sinned by attending it, and I wouldn't attend it if I thought it to be sinful.


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

(12-10-2009, 07:37 PM)Carnivore Wrote:
(12-10-2009, 07:29 PM)franklinf Wrote: It has not been proven that the NO as promulgated is not intrinsically blatantly disrespectful to God. Now, please answer the question.

Have you ever taken a basic course in philosophy perchance?

How is that question relevant to anything?


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

(12-10-2009, 07:39 PM)Carnivore Wrote: I don't care much for your tone...

Well you're in good company...many have not liked my tone in the past....but ultimately they come to see something akin to "my side" even if not a perfect fit....and the fact is, you have spent at least 4 1/2 pages of this thread avoiding a simple question.

Now, Rosarium started a poll about his question.....I was going to and will start 2 similar ones after his has a good run and the results are back....in the mean time I direct you to a poll that is very telling about the demographic here and to which I alluded several pages back...

Now I'm not sure if you are knowledgeable enough about the trad world...but an independent priest using the 1956 missal usually means one thing...a thing most here do not and even if they did...cannot promote on these threads

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3425042.0.html


so if you want to learn the faith you have come to the right place...but if you have to listen...and listen well to those who know more about it than you


that said ...we could all be wrong....but you're not going to convince anyone of the justice of your view by coming on and simply contradicting or avoiding...and you're probably not going to be able until you know what trads really think and why


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

(12-10-2009, 07:41 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: That's a false conclusion.  

Maybe it can't be proven because we don't have the means to prove it.  First, you would have to define what constitutes proof, then we shall see if we have the means.  I offered one means - an authoritative statement by the Church.

What would constitute proof to you, one way or the other?

Are you interested in the truth and intellectual honesty or are you interested in rhetoric and spin?  Characterizing opposing opinions as "lies", "crazy hypotheticals", "fantasies", etc. is just rhetoric and has nothing of use in it.

What happened to the critical thinking you were promoting?

You're absolutely right.  In terms of logic it is a false (actually premature) conclusion.  Neither position can be proven one way or the other using logic.  

What the logic does not factor in is the authority of the source that created the matter being discussed.  In this case the OF Mass by the Catholic Church.  That sets up the argument that eventually boils down to nothing more than my own conclusion (or those of others) versus the Church.  The Church need not proclaim such matters from the Chair of Peter to triumph over our personal conclusions each and every time.

I am indeed interested in the truth.  In this context the truth or the "authoritative statement" by the Church is demonstrated by Her promulgation and continued celebration of the Ordinary Form of the Mass...


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

(12-10-2009, 07:58 PM)Carnivore Wrote:
(12-10-2009, 07:41 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: That's a false conclusion.  

Maybe it can't be proven because we don't have the means to prove it.  First, you would have to define what constitutes proof, then we shall see if we have the means.  I offered one means - an authoritative statement by the Church.

What would constitute proof to you, one way or the other?

Are you interested in the truth and intellectual honesty or are you interested in rhetoric and spin?  Characterizing opposing opinions as "lies", "crazy hypotheticals", "fantasies", etc. is just rhetoric and has nothing of use in it.

What happened to the critical thinking you were promoting?

You're absolutely right.  In terms of logic it is a false (actually premature) conclusion.  Neither position can be proven one way or the other using logic.  

What the logic does not factor in is the authority of the source that created the matter being discussed.  In this case the OF Mass by the Catholic Church.  That sets up the argument that eventually boils down to nothing more than my own conclusion (or those of others) versus the Church.  The Church need not proclaim such matters from the Chair of Peter to triumph over our personal conclusions each and every time.

I am indeed interested in the truth.  In this context the truth or the "authoritative statement" by the Church is demonstrated by Her promulgation and continued celebration of the Ordinary Form of the Mass...

Well, it can be proven or not depending on what the burden of proof is.  If the proof required is impossible to obtain, then sure, it cannot be proven by logic.  That is why I asked you what constituted proof to you.  From your statement above, I can infer that the burden of proof you would require is not obtainable in any reasonable way, therefore for the purposes of this discussion, it is unprovable.

And not because it is false, but because we do not have the means of proof.

No, that's not the "authoritative statement".    If the Church's actions were de facto authoritative statements in all manners, St. Joan of Arc would still be considered an heretic.

If the promulgation itself were authoritative, then it would be infallible via the ordinary Magisterium, yet they keep making corrections and changes to the NOM and the GIRM.  As some Neo-Catholics argue, and correctly so, liturgy is a matter of discipline and therefore it can be changed.  If it can be changed, the original cannot necessarily be an infallible statement.  Mistakes can be made in discipline, can't they?

What can't be done is to promulgate an invalid liturgy (and most trads believe the NO to be valid); but promulgating one that God is neutral to or dislikes is not out of the realm of theological possibility as far as I know.  If you disagree, please support your disagreement.


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

(12-10-2009, 08:12 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: No, that's not the "authoritative statement".    If the Church's actions were de facto authoritative statements in all manners, St. Joan of Arc would still be considered an heretic.

If the promulgation itself were authoritative, then it would be infallible via the ordinary Magisterium, yet they keep making corrections and changes to the NOM and the GIRM.  As some Neo-Catholics argue, and correctly so, liturgy is a matter of discipline and therefore it can be changed.  If it can be changed, the original cannot necessarily be an infallible statement.  Mistakes can be made in discipline, can't they?

What can't be done is to promulgate an invalid liturgy (and most trads believe the NO to be valid); but promulgating one that God is neutral to or dislikes is not out of the realm of theological possibility as far as I know.  If you disagree, please support your disagreement.

Wrong.  Coming from the Church carries great authority in itself.  It need not be infallible proclamation.  The Ordinary Form has undergone refinements -- just as the EF Mass did for centuries but none of these refinements came about to repair the Mass because it was deemed as one poster noted "intrinsically blatantly disrespectful to God."  That's just silly.  I think some people rather proudly refer to this process of ongoing refinements as "organic development."

It would appear that some are trying to equate their personal tastes, preferences, opinions and experiences to those of God and that simply does not float.  If someone said "I find the OF Mass is intrinsically and blatantly disrespectful" then that's their own opinion.  But to think they can speak for God runs things right off the rails...


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

And you are wrong.

A good theologian is perfectly capable of arriving at some kind of conclusion regarding what is and is not appropriate in the sight of God.

And a number of theologians have concluded that the New Missal contains a liturgy that is man-centered, not God-centered.

Which do you think God prefers, a liturgy that orients us to ourselves, or to Himself?


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

(12-10-2009, 08:45 PM)Carnivore Wrote:
(12-10-2009, 08:12 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: No, that's not the "authoritative statement".    If the Church's actions were de facto authoritative statements in all manners, St. Joan of Arc would still be considered an heretic.

If the promulgation itself were authoritative, then it would be infallible via the ordinary Magisterium, yet they keep making corrections and changes to the NOM and the GIRM.  As some Neo-Catholics argue, and correctly so, liturgy is a matter of discipline and therefore it can be changed.  If it can be changed, the original cannot necessarily be an infallible statement.  Mistakes can be made in discipline, can't they?

What can't be done is to promulgate an invalid liturgy (and most trads believe the NO to be valid); but promulgating one that God is neutral to or dislikes is not out of the realm of theological possibility as far as I know.  If you disagree, please support your disagreement.

Wrong.  Coming from the Church carries great authority in itself.  It need not be infallible proclamation

So, if a statement comes from Cdl. Ratzinger, head of the CDF, does that carry great authority?  Or is it just opinion?  One person promulgated the Missal - Paul VI.  Maybe it was just his opinion that it was a good Missal, and maybe Cdl. Ratzinger disagrees.  

So, do you agree that the promulgation of a Missal is not infallible?  In other words, it can be "a bad idea" while at the same time being "valid"?

Quote:The Ordinary Form has undergone refinements -- just as the EF Mass did for centuries but none of these refinements came about to repair the Mass because it was deemed as one poster noted "intrinsically blatantly disrespectful to God."  That's just silly.  I think some people rather proudly refer to this process of ongoing refinements as "organic development."

Refinements is being rather kind.  The OF has undergone corrections in everything from Rubrics to translations.  That is not organic development, that is fixing what is broken.

Quote:It would appear that some are trying to equate their personal tastes, preferences, opinions and experiences to those of God and that simply does not float.  If someone said "I find the OF Mass is intrinsically and blatantly disrespectful" then that's their own opinion.  But to think they can speak for God runs things right off the rails...

Right, and saying "I find the OF Mass is intrinsically and blatantly pleasing" is one's own opinion as well and they can't speak for God either.

That's my point.  Cdl. Ratzinger and I were not lying, we were expressing opinions that are lawful ones to express.  The Novus Ordo was a bad idea and continues to be a bad idea in my opinion, and we can discuss why if you like.

As far as the context of Cdl. R's quotes go and if it applies to abuses, I have some other reading material to support the notion it goes to the Missal itself and not just to the abuses.  But, I don't have time to pull all of them together right now.  Hopefully I will sometime tonight.  If you want to read on your own, look at how Cdl. R says the Missal should be used - it is much more restrictive than what is allowed by the GIRM which is intrinsic to the promulgation.

Here's a start.  Article quoting The Spirit of the Liturgy by Cdl. R

http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt92.html

Quote: As is well known, Cardinal Ratzinger has been among those favoring a return to the traditional position of the priest at Mass, in which both he and the people are turned together towards Christ. Here (p. 68) he tells us that:

In the early Church, prayer towards the east was regarded as an apostolic tradition. We cannot date exactly when this turn to the east, the diverting of the gaze from the Temple, took place, but it is certain that it goes back to the earliest times and was always regarded as an essential characteristic of Christian liturgy (and indeed of private prayer).

So, Cdl. R believes that Ad Orientem was regarded as apostolic tradition and calls it an essential characteristic of Christian liturgy.   The GIRM and Missal do not require Ad Orientem as promulgated.  Do you think he would find this problematic in his opinion of the liturgy?  If so, do you see how it can go towards showing his complaint is not just about the Missal celebrated strictly according to the GIRM but goes further that that?

It seems to me his complaint is about what the Missal and GIRM inherently allow as well as people abusing the rubrics.  And I have more quotes to back that up when I have time.

EDIT: for clarity that something was my opinion and not Cdl R's.