Karl Keating's latest comments on this month's Catholic Answers magazine
#1
So in the editorial section this month, Karl Keating talks about the expulsion of Bishop Williamson and titles the small subsection as "Schism breeds more schism". I doubt anyone will call him out (or if someone does, print it for that matter) for calumny, since it has never been declared by the holy father that they are schismatic.


He also calls out John Salza's article in the August 27, 2012 issue of The Remnant. Salza makes the case that the chapel veil was never abrogated. Keating cries "Wrong."


"Actually, the Church has abrogated the requirement that women cover their heads at Mass. Head coverings were mandated by the 1917 Code of Canon Law, but the 1983 Code is silent about them. Many Traditionalists say 'If the new Code is slent on a matter, then the provisions of the old Code apply.' Wrong. The new Code specifically abrogates the old: 'When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated: (1) the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917...."(canon 6). This means that anything not explicitly carried over from the old Code to the new no longer is binding. Since the new Code makes no mention of head coverings, there now is canon law provision regarding them."

"But Salza's argument goes beyond canon law. He says that ecclesiastical traditions-which are to be distinguished from Sacred Tradition- are themselves divinely inspired. This just isn't true. Yes, as he notes, ecclesiastical traditions act as bulwarks to the truths taught by Sacred Tradition. An example he doesn't use: We geuflect when entering the pew as an acknowledgement of Christ in the tabernacle; the very act of geuflection reminds us of the Church's teachings on the Real Presence. And, yes, as Salza notes, if you strip away these customary bulwarks, peoples appreciation of the Faith can weaken; we believe with our intellects but confirm our beliefs with our postures. Remove the latter, and soemtimes you remove the former."

"Salza draws too much from this. While ecclesiastical traditions can be useful (and more than useful: they can be ennobling), that doesn't make them unchangeable of infallible, Customs can change; revealed doctrines cannot. We need to keep the dsitinction in mind"


So sayeth Mr. Keating. Upon some research, I found this in the 1983 Code of Canon Law:


Canon 21: “In doubt, the revocation of a previous law is not presumed,”

Canon 28: A custom is only revoked by a contrary custom or law.

Canon 28: “Unless the law makes express mention of [a contrary custom or law], it does not revoke centennial or immemorial customs.”


It's pretty hard to be more qualified of a immemorial custom than 1 Corinthians 11 and thus practiced all the way until the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

But more to the point, what is the deal with Keating and placing his opinions above other well versed and intelligent Catholics who might just know a thing or two more than he does? He paints this picture of people like Mr. Salza as not kowing his stuff, and curiously leaves out the above citations from the 1983 Code of Canon law.

As some of you may know, Mr. Keating implied in his magazine this past summer that it was Lefebrve and the SSPX that have caused the slower than hoped for growth of the TLM after the motu proprio was decreed, insinuating that Lefebrve and the SSPX have poisoned the waters as it were. Curiously, he leaves out in that piece the illegal suppression of the Tridentine Mass by the vast majority of the bishops post VII and it being the real reason for it's almost total annihilation. Or the fact that most lay persons have never even heard of his grace Lefebrve or the SSPX, so how could that have a bearing on it's painfully slow growth?


I don't know what it is with Mr. Keating and Catholic Answers, but there seems to be a paranoia when some apologists appear more "traditional" ( read authentic!) than they are, thereby taking on this self appointed duty to "correct" them (threatened perhaps?). Mr. Ferrara's book on ETWN speaks about this, and how Keating and those at CA will portray The Remnant and Catholic Family News as some sort of freak extremist groups that should not be paid attention to by faithful Catholics.


Keating and CA wield considerable influence on alot of unsuspecting Catholics. They do a very good job when it comes to defending the faith against Protestants, but are out of there depth it seems when it comes to areas such as the ones mentioned above. The kneejerk reaction when someone criticizes VII or JPII by them is that they are sede or are going sede, or, "too traditional". I've witnessed this firsthand. KK and CA, to my mind can be very dangerous, as they blend solid truths with errors.

Reply
#2
For guys like Keating, it's always about the "law", never the faith.
Reply
#3
Karl Keating is a lawyer.  That very fact makes his every utterance suspect.
Reply
#4
When Karl Keating goes diocese to diocese remarking on all the abuses in each one he can then start to worry about Bishop Williamson and the SSPX
Reply
#5
(10-28-2012, 09:51 PM)DrBombay Wrote: Karl Keating is a lawyer.  That very fact makes his every utterance suspect.
'
Salza is also a lawyer but he is very good on his site and arguments. 
Reply
#6
(10-28-2012, 09:57 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(10-28-2012, 09:51 PM)DrBombay Wrote: Karl Keating is a lawyer.  That very fact makes his every utterance suspect.
'
Salza is also a lawyer but he is very good on his site and arguments. 

Silence!  I prefer blanket condemnations. 
Reply
#7
(10-28-2012, 09:51 PM)DrBombay Wrote: Karl Keating is a lawyer.  That very fact makes his every utterance suspect.

:LOL: That's hilarious
Reply
#8
Keating cries wrong because he dislikes or is uncomfortable with the implications of the conclusion that the headcovering law was never abrogated. People like him are more dangerous to the faith than secularists, liberals, liberal Catholics, and atheists because of the veneer of orthodoxy.
Reply
#9
(10-29-2012, 12:08 AM)MRose Wrote: Keating cries wrong because he dislikes or is uncomfortable with the implications of the conclusion that the headcovering law was never abrogated. People like him are more dangerous to the faith than secularists, liberals, liberal Catholics, and atheists because of the veneer of orthodoxy.

Yup.
Reply
#10
Keating makes his own modernist rules for his religion.  He must be reminded what Jesus said:  the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)