Prudence and posting
#31
We should not be "over critical" of the NO?  What does "over critical" mean?  Should we refrain from restating any criticisms made by the SSPX or Michael Davies or Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci?  I'm not sure how it could be imprudent to restate those criticisms on a trad Catholic forum.

I can understand not wanting to have to deal with the present crisis in the Church (I think even trads get burned out on putting up the good fight).  It is certainly a sensitive topic when trying to convert nonCatholic friends/family (first, introduce them to the faith, then explain the present crisis and expect them to now not just fight for their faith against the rest of the world, but within the Church itself--a tall order indeed).  But I think we do a greater harm by ignoring it altogether. 
Reply
#32
(06-09-2009, 11:05 AM)Underdog Wrote: We should not be "over critical" of the NO?  What does "over critical" mean?  Should we refrain from restating any criticisms made by the SSPX or Michael Davies or Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci?  I'm not sure how it could be imprudent to restate those criticisms on a trad Catholic forum.
See: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...737.0.html

This thread was split for another thread, and that link above is to a thread split from another as well (so these two were part of the same different thread at one point).

By saying "over critical", I'm lightly saying "advocating heresy" which leads to a topic that is not allowed on this forum. Also, I'm pointing out the dangers in causing confustion when it can be avoided. There are a lot of confused people out there and we shouldn't contribute to it. Discussing the true teachings of the Church (especially when a person in authority speaks otherwise), and the problems that come with the NO are fine, as they may alleviate confusion rather than contribute to it.



Reply
#33
(06-09-2009, 11:09 AM)Rosarium Wrote: By saying "over critical", I'm lightly saying "advocating heresy" which leads to a topic that is not allowed on this forum.

Like calling into question the validity?
Reply
#34
The bottom line is this: any type of criticism of anything related to the Church that someone deems necessary should be made prudently and with as little rhetoric as possible.  Some rhetoric will always be there, but it should be minimized.

With regard to rhetoric, saying "I think there may be a validity problem because of "for all" and the intention of the priest" is much different than calling a confected host at a Novus Ordo Mass a "cookie."  The former is the preferred approach for a number of reasons including but not limited to:

1) The deadly seriousness of the topic.

2) Respect for the Church.

3) It allows the criticism to be discussed and answered to in a logical and rational manner.

It's one thing to slam Bush or Obama with rhetoric, it's quite another to slam Holy Mother Church.  If there are problems or faults, in general, they should be commented on in as dignified a manner as possible.  Since we're all human, however, it's not surprising that some rhetoric and emotion will enter into the picture.  But, really, we should try not to do that.  The SSPX, Davies, Ottaviani, etc. always commented in a dignified manner and never referred to the NO Eucharist as a "cookie" AFAIK.  In fact, this goes to the other thread, but the SSPX, Davies, et al.  presume the validity both of the Orders and the Sacrament.

With regard to prudence, I believe there are two considerations:

1) We are not the competent authority.  We are not even priests let alone bishops or the Pope.  So, we have to realize that what we believe to be the truth may not in fact be the truth.  We may be wrong in our opinions and reasoning.  If it turns out we are, and we have led others astray, then we will have to suffer the consequences of that, too.  We are held, by St. Thomas among others, to follow our conscience even if it is in error, but we are not given free reign to persuade others to follow our own consciences.

2) Members of this forum are expected to hold to the rules of the forum.  Now, the rules (currently) don't say anything about questioning validity, but it is presumed that people will use prudence in discussing such controversial matters just as they would use prudence in discussing any other matters relating to the Church.  To be clear, Vox and I hold the Novus Ordo Missae to be valid and licit as promulgated and we hold that the Orders under the new forms to be valid as well.  So anything contrary to that really is tolerated by us more than accepted, and if it becomes a significant problem in tone and quantity, then we'll make a rule against it because, quite frankly, it would be rather stupid of us to sponsor a forum that actively promoted something we don't believe in.  So, prudence is relevant here in that if people want to have these kinds of discussions, they should realize they need to tread lightly or the whole topic will be banned such as the sedevacantism one is.

I pay attention not just to individual posts, but also to trends of conversations and trends of posters.  Things that become problematic over time get cleaned up over time.  Things that are tolerated today may not be tomorrow because they have proven over time to be problematic.   There will usually be a fairly clear indicator that things are being frowned upon before a hammer comes down, but the best way to avoid topics and such being banned is to use prudence and respect in discussing them.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)