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! - SoCalLocal - 12-10-2009

Bo-ring
Just let it die. Neither one of you is going to sway the other.
[Image: duelists.jpg]
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/duelists.htm



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

(12-10-2009, 09:01 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: 1.) 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.  

2.) 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"?

3.) 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.

4.) 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.

5.) 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.

6.) 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.

7.) 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?

8.) 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.

1.) That statement  was not made within the context of his office at the time.  Further, it's not what you suggest it is -- more later.

2.) The Mass is not promulgated from the Chair of Peter in an infallible manner.  That I agree with.  That does not mean it's not done with considerable authority.

3.) So you say.  That's personal opinion.

4.) Sure you can say that -- not that it would mean anything except to you.  The problem is that some suggest Pope Benedict said that at some point prior to becoming pope and he didn't.  He was condemning the abusive celebration of some individual OF Masses not the official formulation of it.

5.) See #4.  It's only a lie (or exhibit of ignorance) to suggest that Pope Benedict applied those words to the formulation of the OF Mass and not the actual abusive celebration of the OF Mass by some.

6.)  OK.

7.) Having read a few of Pope Benedict's works I would fully agree that he see's the ad orientum celebration of the Mass to be both important and a historical tradition of the Church -- possibly dating to the Apostles.  What he does not suggest is that the ad orientum orientation as being part of the Church's dogmatic deposit of faith.

8.) I would disagree for the most part.  I think his biggest concern by far is how people have taken license with the OF Mass in complete disregard for the rubrics.  I do believe he wants to tighten certain things up and that's great -- more organic refinement.  I also think he's quite adept at displaying his own preferences within the rubics while he himself celebrates the Mass and that in itself is a huge blessing.


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

(12-10-2009, 09:36 PM)SoCalLocal Wrote:
Bo-ring
Just let it die. Neither one of you is going to sway the other.

Salient suggestion, Arch...


Re: The Fundamentalist Catholic Flowchart -- a Good Laugh LOL! - franklinf - 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?

What has this have to do with anything?

I  answered your question. Now please answer the previous one, as you said you would.


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

(12-10-2009, 09:44 PM)Carnivore Wrote:
(12-10-2009, 09:01 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: 1.) 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.  

2.) 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"?

3.) 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.

4.) 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.

5.) 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.

6.) 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.

7.) 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?

8.) 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.

1.) That statement  was not made within the context of his office at the time.  Further, it's not what you suggest it is -- more later.

Which office?  Cardinal?  Theologian?  Bishop and successor of the Apostles?  Head of the CDF?  How do you weight the different offices and the authority?  That's my question which you didn't answer.  Does his opinion have a weight of authority?

Quote:2.) The Mass is not promulgated from the Chair of Peter in an infallible manner.  That I agree with.  That does not mean it's not done with considerable authority.

No one denied it had considerable authority.  But there can be considerable authority behind a bad idea. 

Quote:3.) So you say.  That's personal opinion.

So, for example, changing the English (and other) translations of "pro multis" from "for all" to what a first year Latin student knows what it should be which is "for many" is a refinement rather than a correction?

Quote:4.) Sure you can say that -- not that it would mean anything except to you.  The problem is that some suggest Pope Benedict said that at some point prior to becoming pope and he didn't.  He was condemning the abusive celebration of some individual OF Masses not the official formulation of it.

The problem is that you are misreading the Pope and supplying your own context instead of reading it as written and within the continuity of his other comments on the liturgy.

Quote:5.) See #4.  It's only a lie (or exhibit of ignorance) to suggest that Pope Benedict applied those words to the formulation of the OF Mass and not the actual abusive celebration of the OF Mass by some.

Oh?  A lie or ignorance?  I guess an honest mistake is outside the realm of probability, yes?  But, I'm not mistaken.  Let's go back to it.

Do you agree the Novus Ordo Missae is a fabrication using the definition I supplied previously (which comes from Webster)?  Yes or no?

Quote:7.) Having read a few of Pope Benedict's works I would fully agree that he see's the ad orientum celebration of the Mass to be both important and a historical tradition of the Church -- possibly dating to the Apostles.  What he does not suggest is that the ad orientum orientation as being part of the Church's dogmatic deposit of faith.

No one claimed he suggested that.  I'm giving context to his comments about banal and fabricated liturgies to show that his comments are rooted in the Missal and rubrics themselves.  Let's look at his words again: "an essential characteristic of Christian liturgy".  Does the NOM/GIRM remove the ad orientem requirement?  How would a reasonable man view the removal of something they believe to be essential?

Quote:8.) I would disagree for the most part.  I think his biggest concern by far is how people have taken license with the OF Mass in complete disregard for the rubrics.  I do believe he wants to tighten certain things up and that's great -- more organic refinement.  I also think he's quite adept at displaying his own preferences within the rubics while he himself celebrates the Mass and that in itself is a huge blessing.

Well, he said this:

http://cnsblog.wordpress.com/2009/08/21/new-italian-book-features-then-cardinal-ratzinger-on-liturgy/

Quote:Nevertheless I believe that in the long term the Roman church once again must have only one Roman rite. In practice, the existence of two official rights would be difficult for bishops and priests to ‘manage.’ The Roman rite of the future should be one, celebrated in Latin or in the vernacular, but completely in the tradition of the rite that was handed down to us. This could include some new elements that have been experienced as valid such as the new feasts, some new prefaces for Mass, an extended lectionary — with more choices than before, but not too many — a ‘oratio fidelium,’ that is, a fixed litany of intercessions that follow the ‘Oremus’ before the offertory, which is where it had been placed.

Sounds like his "reform-of-the-reform" is to go back to the 1962 Missal and add what can be  "experienced as valid" from the New Missal which is probably what the Council intended Abp. Bugini et al. to do in the first place.

Or do you disagree?


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

(12-10-2009, 09:44 PM)Carnivore Wrote: 8.) I would disagree for the most part.  I think his biggest concern by far is how people have taken license with the OF Mass in complete disregard for the rubrics.  I do believe he wants to tighten certain things up and that's great -- more organic refinement.  I also think he's quite adept at displaying his own preferences within the rubics while he himself celebrates the Mass and that in itself is a huge blessing.

The "license" is part of the NO...they are really inseparable for all practical purposes...the difference between a guy like you...that wants his NO dressed up with some Latin and Greek, and a guy like Scrott Hahn who wants some wailing in the aisles ...is nothing but a matter of taste


But with a trad it is typically a major theological difference...the old true Faith against a new impostor or at least one devoid of substance...and the impostor shows himself well by his fruits...and other things.

But I distract the discussion...keep going


Re: The Fundamentalist Catholic Flowchart -- a Good Laugh LOL! - INPEFESS - 12-11-2009

(12-10-2009, 10:55 PM)Scipio_a Wrote:
(12-10-2009, 09:44 PM)Carnivore Wrote: 8.) I would disagree for the most part.  I think his biggest concern by far is how people have taken license with the OF Mass in complete disregard for the rubrics.  I do believe he wants to tighten certain things up and that's great -- more organic refinement.  I also think he's quite adept at displaying his own preferences within the rubics while he himself celebrates the Mass and that in itself is a huge blessing.

The "license" is part of the NO...they are really inseparable for all practical purposes...the difference between a guy like you...that wants his NO dressed up with some Latin and Greek, and a guy like Scrott Hahn who wants some wailing in the aisles ...is nothing but a matter of taste


But with a trad it is typically a major theological difference...the old true Faith against a new impostor or at least one devoid of substance...and the impostor shows himself well by his fruits...and other things.

But I distract the discussion...keep going

Precisely. To minimize the objections of traditional Catholics to mere "preference" and “taste” is absolute folly to say the least. It is not about the smells and bells or the appearance; it is about the content - what is said, or, more importantly, what is not said. If it is the Ordinary and official prayer of the Church, it should properly and efficiently express what the Church teaches. Though many will post pictures of very reverent and orthodox traditions woven into the new Mass, this is a perfect example of the lack of unity of worship in the Church, one of the legs supporting the three-legged stool of religion. The Truths of the Faith presented in the Mass should be expressed in the same unified and Universal manner which can not be opted, changed, omitted, dropped, substituted, customized, or in any way altered by the individual priest. There should be no preferences when it comes to expressing the Truths of the Catholic Faith. There should be no "for many" and "for all". There should be no Eucharistic Prayers professing the propitiatory nature of the Mass, and then a Eucharistic Prayer which omits it. There should be no mention of "bread of life" and then "Body of Christ". There should be no "celebration of Christ's death" and then "the Sacrifice of Christ". Without the Offertory of the Mass explicitly confessing the unchanging nature of these Truths, there is no unified profession of belief. Without these specific Truths and petitions being unambiguously represented, there is little evidence of these Truths outside of the words of Consecration. And even these words are not but the repetition of an ancient dialogue recorded in Scripture. Any heretic could read the words and not actually believe what they mean - that It is truly God in the Flesh and Blood held between the fingers of the priest. Protestants read it all the time yet deny its Truth. It is was because of this that the Offertory was the first thing that Luther sought to remove from the Mass. The Offertory is a principle separation of worship between Catholics and heretics. It is an unchanging, unambiguous profession of faith, offering to God, and propitiatory acknowledgement and confession of belief. That is the Mass that is so important to the maintenance of the first mark by which the Church may be known. It is One in faith, worship, and government.



Re: The Fundamentalist Catholic Flowchart -- a Good Laugh LOL! - Benno - 12-11-2009

Well it gave me a laugh any way, back to the topic.

And do we now have to deal with yet more frigging acronyms - OF vs EF? It never ends...


Re: The Fundamentalist Catholic Flowchart -- a Good Laugh LOL! - Historian - 12-11-2009

(12-11-2009, 01:29 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(12-10-2009, 10:55 PM)Scipio_a Wrote:
(12-10-2009, 09:44 PM)Carnivore Wrote: 8.) I would disagree for the most part.  I think his biggest concern by far is how people have taken license with the OF Mass in complete disregard for the rubrics.  I do believe he wants to tighten certain things up and that's great -- more organic refinement.  I also think he's quite adept at displaying his own preferences within the rubics while he himself celebrates the Mass and that in itself is a huge blessing.

The "license" is part of the NO...they are really inseparable for all practical purposes...the difference between a guy like you...that wants his NO dressed up with some Latin and Greek, and a guy like Scrott Hahn who wants some wailing in the aisles ...is nothing but a matter of taste


But with a trad it is typically a major theological difference...the old true Faith against a new impostor or at least one devoid of substance...and the impostor shows himself well by his fruits...and other things.

But I distract the discussion...keep going

Precisely. To minimize the objections of traditional Catholics to mere "preference" and “taste” is absolute folly to say the least. It is not about the smells and bells or the appearance; it is about the content - what is said, or, more importantly, what is not said. If it is the Ordinary and official prayer of the Church, it should properly and efficiently express what the Church teaches. Though many will post pictures of very reverent and orthodox traditions woven into the new Mass, this is a perfect example of the lack of unity of worship in the Church, one of the legs supporting the three-legged stool of religion. The Truths of the Faith presented in the Mass should be expressed in the same unified and Universal manner which can not be opted, changed, omitted, dropped, substituted, customized, or in any way altered by the individual priest. There should be no preferences when it comes to expressing the Truths of the Catholic Faith. There should be no "for many" and "for all". There should be no Eucharistic Prayers professing the propitiatory nature of the Mass, and then a Eucharistic Prayer which omits it. There should be no mention of "bread of life" and then "Body of Christ". There should be no "celebration of Christ's death" and then "the Sacrifice of Christ". Without the Offertory of the Mass explicitly confessing the unchanging nature of these Truths, there is no unified profession of belief. Without these specific Truths and petitions being unambiguously represented, there is little evidence of these Truths outside of the words of Consecration. And even these words are not but the repetition of an ancient dialogue recorded in Scripture. Any heretic could read the words and not actually believe what they mean - that It is truly God in the Flesh and Blood held between the fingers of the priest. Protestants read it all the time yet deny its Truth. It is was because of this that the Offertory was the first thing that Luther sought to remove from the Mass. The Offertory is a principle separation of worship between Catholics and heretics. It is an unchanging, unambiguous profession of faith, offering to God, and propitiatory acknowledgement and confession of belief. That is the Mass that is so important to the maintenance of the first mark by which the Church may be known. It is One in faith, worship, and government.

Agreed, and I'm glad that to my reading at least, B16 is on the same page.  When he calls ad orientem an essential part of Christian liturgy it is clear, to me at least, he doesn't view these things as "bells and smells" but as part of the profession of faith and latria which needs to be inherent in the liturgy.

How much he will be able to fix against the tide of Modernists and Liberals is another question.



Re: The Fundamentalist Catholic Flowchart -- a Good Laugh LOL! - Historian - 12-11-2009

(12-10-2009, 10:55 PM)Scipio_a Wrote:
(12-10-2009, 09:44 PM)Carnivore Wrote: 8.) I would disagree for the most part.  I think his biggest concern by far is how people have taken license with the OF Mass in complete disregard for the rubrics.  I do believe he wants to tighten certain things up and that's great -- more organic refinement.  I also think he's quite adept at displaying his own preferences within the rubics while he himself celebrates the Mass and that in itself is a huge blessing.

The "license" is part of the NO...they are really inseparable for all practical purposes...the difference between a guy like you...that wants his NO dressed up with some Latin and Greek, and a guy like Scrott Hahn who wants some wailing in the aisles ...is nothing but a matter of taste

Compare:

http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1999/feb1999p10_382.html

"Cdl. Ratzinger" Wrote:An orthodox liturgy, that is to say, one which expresses the true faith, is never a compilation made according to the pragmatic criteria of different ceremonies, handled in a positivist and arbitrary way, one way today and another way tomorrow.

:thumb: