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! - Scipio_a - 12-16-2009

Well I wish someone would turn him into bacon then so something good comes of something so nothing


Re: The Fundamentalist Catholic Flowchart -- a Good Laugh LOL! - INPEFESS - 12-16-2009

On the positive side of things, his residence here is a great educational and spiritual opportunity for him. I hope he makes use of the abundance of knowledge and resources available here. Hopefully these discourses can provide a "traditional perspective" and thus help him to form a more rounded view of the current crisis in the Church.


Re: The Fundamentalist Catholic Flowchart -- a Good Laugh LOL! - Benno - 12-16-2009

(12-15-2009, 11:42 AM)Louis_Martin Wrote: To assist, Princeton's wordnet provides this:

Fabrication:
# a deliberately false or improbable account
# writing in a fictional form
# the act of making something (a product) from raw materials; "the synthesis and fabrication of single crystals"; "an improvement in the manufacture of explosives"; "manufacturing is vital to Great Britain"
# the act of constructing something (as a piece of machinery)
# lying: the deliberate act of deviating from the truth

Bold sections being pertinent, methinks.
I've given up on carnivore, but I'd like Quis' answer to this - isn't ANY liturgy/ rite a "fabrication", by the bolded parts of the definition above? A constructed producct of raw materials? Not meaning to be annoying, just wondering what your answer would be. I'd say the TLM liturgy is a better fabrication than the NOM, and a far more solid and lasting one, but I'd still call the actual liturgical part of it a "fabrication", in the literal sense.



Re: The Fundamentalist Catholic Flowchart -- a Good Laugh LOL! - Historian - 12-16-2009

(12-16-2009, 02:09 AM)Benno Wrote:
(12-15-2009, 11:42 AM)Louis_Martin Wrote: To assist, Princeton's wordnet provides this:

Fabrication:
# a deliberately false or improbable account
# writing in a fictional form
# the act of making something (a product) from raw materials; "the synthesis and fabrication of single crystals"; "an improvement in the manufacture of explosives"; "manufacturing is vital to Great Britain"
# the act of constructing something (as a piece of machinery)
# lying: the deliberate act of deviating from the truth

Bold sections being pertinent, methinks.

I've given up on carnivore, but I'd like Quis' answer to this - isn't ANY liturgy/ rite a "fabrication", by the bolded parts of the definition above? A constructed producct of raw materials? Not meaning to be annoying, just wondering what your answer would be. I'd say the TLM liturgy is a better fabrication than the NOM, and a far more solid and lasting one, but I'd still call the actual liturgical part of it a "fabrication", in the literal sense.

No, a fabrication is pieced together like a patchwork from the beginning.  You get parts, put them together, and the sum of the parts is the product.  Something that occurs organically changes (usually) subtly over time in response to things.

The NO was designed by a committee that took parts of the liturgy that came from different eras, were surpressed at times, etc., added some new stuff and glued them together.  They also had political and (false) ecumenical motives.

The TLM evolved over a very long period of time in response to cultures, disciplines, prudence, etc.

One can legitimately ask the question: what difference does it make?  And I can give a legitimate answer, but it would be a long one and rooted in philosophy, etc.  Really, though, the Pope has already answered it as Cdl. Ratzinger when he reminds us that the liturgy comes from God and can't be a construction of man.  It also needs to be firmly rooted in liturgical tradition.

The liturgy needs to be come to fruition organically in a similar manner as to how dogmas are defined because that is how God works when it comes to theology.  The liturgy is, in a real sense, a dogma.  It goes beyond reason into the realm of Faith, therefore it cannot be a product of reason alone, but it must be reason informed by faith.

Left to reason alone it becomes a banal fabrication.  Really, it becomes a rationalization of the supernatural which leads to a dead spirituality.


Re: The Fundamentalist Catholic Flowchart -- a Good Laugh LOL! - Benno - 12-16-2009

Great answer. Thanks.


Re: The Fundamentalist Catholic Flowchart -- a Good Laugh LOL! - Carnivore - 12-16-2009

(12-16-2009, 07:18 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(12-16-2009, 02:09 AM)Benno Wrote:
(12-15-2009, 11:42 AM)Louis_Martin Wrote: To assist, Princeton's wordnet provides this:

Fabrication:
# a deliberately false or improbable account
# writing in a fictional form
# the act of making something (a product) from raw materials; "the synthesis and fabrication of single crystals"; "an improvement in the manufacture of explosives"; "manufacturing is vital to Great Britain"
# the act of constructing something (as a piece of machinery)
# lying: the deliberate act of deviating from the truth

Bold sections being pertinent, methinks.

I've given up on carnivore, but I'd like Quis' answer to this - isn't ANY liturgy/ rite a "fabrication", by the bolded parts of the definition above? A constructed producct of raw materials? Not meaning to be annoying, just wondering what your answer would be. I'd say the TLM liturgy is a better fabrication than the NOM, and a far more solid and lasting one, but I'd still call the actual liturgical part of it a "fabrication", in the literal sense.

No, a fabrication is pieced together like a patchwork from the beginning.  You get parts, put them together, and the sum of the parts is the product.  Something that occurs organically changes (usually) subtly over time in response to things.

The NO was designed by a committee that took parts of the liturgy that came from different eras, were surpressed at times, etc., added some new stuff and glued them together.  They also had political and (false) ecumenical motives.

The TLM evolved over a very long period of time in response to cultures, disciplines, prudence, etc.

One can legitimately ask the question: what difference does it make?  And I can give a legitimate answer, but it would be a long one and rooted in philosophy, etc.  Really, though, the Pope has already answered it as Cdl. Ratzinger when he reminds us that the liturgy comes from God and can't be a construction of man.  It also needs to be firmly rooted in liturgical tradition.

The liturgy needs to be come to fruition organically in a similar manner as to how dogmas are defined because that is how God works when it comes to theology.  The liturgy is, in a real sense, a dogma.  It goes beyond reason into the realm of Faith, therefore it cannot be a product of reason alone, but it must be reason informed by faith.

Left to reason alone it becomes a banal fabrication.  Really, it becomes a rationalization of the supernatural which leads to a dead spirituality.

The extraordinary had to begin some place -- probably a lot like the Pauline Mass.  It probably took some elements from the AVM.


Re: The Fundamentalist Catholic Flowchart -- a Good Laugh LOL! - Meg - 12-16-2009

It's been awhile since I've attended an NO Mass, but I have a vague recollection that the various prayers at the NO were a watered down and simplified version of the TLM. There also seemed to be less emphasis placed on sin.

Here are the three prayers said by the priest, at the TLM, in preparation for Communion, just after the Agnus Dei. (This is the part where in the NO everyone participates in the goofy sign of peace, with handshaking and hugs.) This is from the St. Andrew Daily Missel, an older form than what the FSSP and SSPX use, but it's very similar, I think. I like this older missel because of the old prayers, and daily propers.

Prayers in preparation for the Communion, English translation from TLM (for those who are attached to the NO, and who may be unaware of the older form):

"O Lord Jesus Christ, who saidst to Thy Apostles, Peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you; look not upon my sins, but upon the faith of Thy Church; and vouchsafe to grant her peace and unity according the Thy will: O God who livist and reignest world without end."

"O Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, who according to the will of the Father, through the co-operation of the Holy Ghost, hast by Thy death given life to the world: deliever me by this Thy most holy Body and Blood from all my transgressions and from all evils; make me always adhere to Thy commandments and never suffer me to be separated from Thee; who with the same God the Father and the Holy Ghost livist and reignest God, for ever and ever."

"Let not the partaking of Thy body, O Lord Jesus Christ, which I, though unworthy, presume to receive, turn to Thy judgement and condemnation: but through Thy goodness may it be unto me a safeguard and healing remedy both of the soul and the body; who livist and reignest with God the Father in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end."
------------------------------------------------




Re: The Fundamentalist Catholic Flowchart -- a Good Laugh LOL! - Joseph11 - 12-16-2009

(12-16-2009, 11:09 AM)Carnivore Wrote:
(12-16-2009, 07:18 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(12-16-2009, 02:09 AM)Benno Wrote:
(12-15-2009, 11:42 AM)Louis_Martin Wrote: To assist, Princeton's wordnet provides this:

Fabrication:
# a deliberately false or improbable account
# writing in a fictional form
# the act of making something (a product) from raw materials; "the synthesis and fabrication of single crystals"; "an improvement in the manufacture of explosives"; "manufacturing is vital to Great Britain"
# the act of constructing something (as a piece of machinery)
# lying: the deliberate act of deviating from the truth

Bold sections being pertinent, methinks.

I've given up on carnivore, but I'd like Quis' answer to this - isn't ANY liturgy/ rite a "fabrication", by the bolded parts of the definition above? A constructed producct of raw materials? Not meaning to be annoying, just wondering what your answer would be. I'd say the TLM liturgy is a better fabrication than the NOM, and a far more solid and lasting one, but I'd still call the actual liturgical part of it a "fabrication", in the literal sense.

No, a fabrication is pieced together like a patchwork from the beginning.  You get parts, put them together, and the sum of the parts is the product.  Something that occurs organically changes (usually) subtly over time in response to things.

The NO was designed by a committee that took parts of the liturgy that came from different eras, were surpressed at times, etc., added some new stuff and glued them together.  They also had political and (false) ecumenical motives.

The TLM evolved over a very long period of time in response to cultures, disciplines, prudence, etc.

One can legitimately ask the question: what difference does it make?  And I can give a legitimate answer, but it would be a long one and rooted in philosophy, etc.  Really, though, the Pope has already answered it as Cdl. Ratzinger when he reminds us that the liturgy comes from God and can't be a construction of man.  It also needs to be firmly rooted in liturgical tradition.

The liturgy needs to be come to fruition organically in a similar manner as to how dogmas are defined because that is how God works when it comes to theology.  The liturgy is, in a real sense, a dogma.  It goes beyond reason into the realm of Faith, therefore it cannot be a product of reason alone, but it must be reason informed by faith.

Left to reason alone it becomes a banal fabrication.  Really, it becomes a rationalization of the supernatural which leads to a dead spirituality.

The extraordinary had to begin some place -- probably a lot like the Pauline Mass.  It probably took some elements from the AVM.

You are absolutely incorrect here.  The Modern Rite was, as Ratzinger has said, an artificially manufactured product, not an organic development from what was already extant and alive.  In fact, to realize the truth of this, you need only read a description of what was done in the formalization of the Roman Missal under Pope Pius V.  Then read Antoine Dumas's essay, in which, among other odd statements, he claims the Consilium adhered to its originally adopted criteria for the revision of the Roman Missal under Bugnini's predecessor, which WOULD have enabled an organic reform.  This claim is untruthful to say the least, because the criteria under which Coetus 18bis (Dumas's group) wreckovized the propers was never approved by the Consilium, but was, apparently, given tacit approval by Bugnini after his predecessor died.

The Gregorian/Tridentine/Traditional/Ancient/Usus Antiqior/EF Missal did begin somewhere alright:  apostolic times.  Most good liturgical scholars have known for over century that many of the prayers in that Missal are VERY ancient.

You need to read BOOKS Carnivore.


Re: The Fundamentalist Catholic Flowchart -- a Good Laugh LOL! - Carnivore - 12-16-2009

(12-16-2009, 12:04 PM)Zakhur Wrote:
(12-16-2009, 11:09 AM)Carnivore Wrote:
(12-16-2009, 07:18 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(12-16-2009, 02:09 AM)Benno Wrote:
(12-15-2009, 11:42 AM)Louis_Martin Wrote: To assist, Princeton's wordnet provides this:

Fabrication:
# a deliberately false or improbable account
# writing in a fictional form
# the act of making something (a product) from raw materials; "the synthesis and fabrication of single crystals"; "an improvement in the manufacture of explosives"; "manufacturing is vital to Great Britain"
# the act of constructing something (as a piece of machinery)
# lying: the deliberate act of deviating from the truth

Bold sections being pertinent, methinks.

I've given up on carnivore, but I'd like Quis' answer to this - isn't ANY liturgy/ rite a "fabrication", by the bolded parts of the definition above? A constructed producct of raw materials? Not meaning to be annoying, just wondering what your answer would be. I'd say the TLM liturgy is a better fabrication than the NOM, and a far more solid and lasting one, but I'd still call the actual liturgical part of it a "fabrication", in the literal sense.

No, a fabrication is pieced together like a patchwork from the beginning.  You get parts, put them together, and the sum of the parts is the product.  Something that occurs organically changes (usually) subtly over time in response to things.

The NO was designed by a committee that took parts of the liturgy that came from different eras, were surpressed at times, etc., added some new stuff and glued them together.  They also had political and (false) ecumenical motives.

The TLM evolved over a very long period of time in response to cultures, disciplines, prudence, etc.

One can legitimately ask the question: what difference does it make?  And I can give a legitimate answer, but it would be a long one and rooted in philosophy, etc.  Really, though, the Pope has already answered it as Cdl. Ratzinger when he reminds us that the liturgy comes from God and can't be a construction of man.  It also needs to be firmly rooted in liturgical tradition.

The liturgy needs to be come to fruition organically in a similar manner as to how dogmas are defined because that is how God works when it comes to theology.  The liturgy is, in a real sense, a dogma.  It goes beyond reason into the realm of Faith, therefore it cannot be a product of reason alone, but it must be reason informed by faith.

Left to reason alone it becomes a banal fabrication.  Really, it becomes a rationalization of the supernatural which leads to a dead spirituality.

The extraordinary had to begin some place -- probably a lot like the Pauline Mass.  It probably took some elements from the AVM.

You are absolutely incorrect here.  The Modern Rite was, as Ratzinger has said, an artificially manufactured product, not an organic development from what was already extant and alive.  In fact, to realize the truth of this, you need only read a description of what was done in the formalization of the Roman Missal under Pope Pius V.  Then read Antoine Dumas's essay, in which, among other odd statements, he claims the Consilium adhered to its originally adopted criteria for the revision of the Roman Missal under Bugnini's predecessor, which WOULD have enabled an organic reform.  This claim is untruthful to say the least, because the criteria under which Coetus 18bis (Dumas's group) wreckovized the propers was never approved by the Consilium, but was, apparently, given tacit approval by Bugnini after his predecessor died.

The Gregorian/Tridentine/Traditional/Ancient/Usus Antiqior/EF Missal did begin somewhere alright:  apostolic times.  Most good liturgical scholars have known for over century that many of the prayers in that Missal are VERY ancient.

You need to read BOOKS Carnivore.

No way does the EF Mass date to Apostolic times any more than the OF Mass does.  That's laughable.  While the OF Mass is certainly influenced by the EF Mass, I like to think of the OF as the resumption of the pure development of the Mass of the early church.  That's why I prefer to refer to the EF Mass as the Ancient Vernacular Mass (AVS.)

You need to red some BOOKS too.  A wide breadth of books that will help you to understand the actually truth and not some brewed-up conspiracy theory...


Re: The Fundamentalist Catholic Flowchart -- a Good Laugh LOL! - Historian - 12-16-2009

Can't we just vote him off?

I mean, he has ignored us and disrespected us in a community were most here are well known and respected, even if there are differences.

Why should we let such an arrogant and insulting person engage our attention?