Jimmy Akin, Patrick Coffin
#11
Nothng wrong wi jimmie. Some parts o the  north you could easisly get  maimed for mockin that name
Reply
#12
(01-16-2011, 01:49 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: Although they do state that their opinions are mere "opinions" at times accordingly, my opinion is that they should be silent where the church is silent ... and have a real "Catholic Answers" program which answers and confirms nonnegotiable church teaching, and leave it at that. They should simply say "the church is silent" OR "the church is open to different interpretations" and move on. They can certainly give St. Augustine's slant or Thomas Aquinas' slant, but leave their own slant out of it.

I'm not saying that every Catholic program must be like that, but with a format like "Catholic Answers" which is fast paced, time constrained, and has callers of all backgrounds, I think it is best to just stick to authoritative church teaching and nix the personal opinions and experiences. Things are confusing enough as it is.
I agree with this completely, and I do have to be honest, as someone who listens to them pretty regularly, if there is a position where the Church does not have an official position, he will say so. At least that has been my experience.

I did peruse his blog to see if I could find any bias against the Latin Mass, and as I suspected, I found the converse to be true.

His breakdown of the Motu Proprio. It is really nothing more than a very comprehensive breakdown of implementation, but I cannot find any bias against the TLM, if anything, his treatment is pro-TLM:
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fi...-on-s.html

His suggestion (of several) to a reader who questions about praying Rosary in Latin. He recommends learning all the prayers in Latin:
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/04/rosary_in_latin.html



Cunctas...seriously? You don't take him seriously because his name is Jimmy? Surely you jest.




Reply
#13
Neither of these people support traditional Catholicism in any tangible way.  As far as theology and Church goes, Akin has made some rather dubious statements in the past.

I would personally avoid them for the most part.  If you post them here, don't be surprised if you get a violent reaction.

Reply
#14
Unless he's mad!
Reply
#15
It's easy to see where we differ, at least he and I if not he and other trads:

http://www.jimmyakin.org/liturgy/page/2/

"You know, in some ways, radical traditionalism -- as opposed to a legitimate Catholic traditionalism that merely prefers traditional expressions of the faith but does not reject Vatican II and the contemporary Church -- annoys me more than progressivism"

I.e., anyone who wants the abrogation of the NOM is a "radical traditionalist".  We're only "legitimate" if we merely have a preference for one form of the liturgy over another.  I'm not sure what "reject' means, but my guess is unless we say there is nothing wrong with V2 and the "contemporary Church" (whatever that means) we're illegitimate.  Even moreso than progressivists which I read as a nice term for Modernists and Liberals.

Sorry, but even according to Canon Law we're allowed to make our pastoral needs known.  That is completely Catholic and legitimate.  My pastoral need is the abrogation of the NO, bad priests, worse homilies, etc.  If Rome doesn't want to do it, that's a different question.  But there is nothing "illegitimate" about voicing a pastoral need to practice my faith in the way that was approved for centuries if not thousands of years depending on the question.  There is nothing "illegitimate" about a pastoral need to have the Vatican authoritatively comment on and clean up the Council documents.
 
Reply
#16
(01-16-2011, 03:10 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Nothng wrong wi jimmie. Some parts o the  north you could easisly get  maimed for mockin that name

Right.  His name could be Nancy for all I care.  John Wayne's real name was Marion - nothing wrong with that either except it's not "playground safe."

His name is not a problem, and it's an ad hominem distraction from a serious question which is whether what he says is useful and correct for the general populace, and for trads whether he is antagonistic towards us or not.
Reply
#17
(01-16-2011, 06:06 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: It's easy to see where we differ, at least he and I if not he and other trads:

http://www.jimmyakin.org/liturgy/page/2/

"You know, in some ways, radical traditionalism -- as opposed to a legitimate Catholic traditionalism that merely prefers traditional expressions of the faith but does not reject Vatican II and the contemporary Church -- annoys me more than progressivism"    
Quis, where is this quote? I can't find it off the link you provided. That link kicks off with a post from Tim Jones.
Reply
#18
(01-16-2011, 06:29 PM)Beatissima Mariae Wrote:
(01-16-2011, 06:06 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: It's easy to see where we differ, at least he and I if not he and other trads:

http://www.jimmyakin.org/liturgy/page/2/

"You know, in some ways, radical traditionalism -- as opposed to a legitimate Catholic traditionalism that merely prefers traditional expressions of the faith but does not reject Vatican II and the contemporary Church -- annoys me more than progressivism"    
Quis, where is this quote? I can't find it off the link you provided. That link kicks off with a post from Tim Jones.

Oh sorry, I was reading something else there that talked about "rad trads" and Quo Primum when I was looking for that quote.

Here's the right link:

http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/06/more_radtrad_th.html

Here's more of the same, if you're interested:

http://www.jimmyakin.org/2006/04/overcoming_temp.html

Reply
#19
(01-16-2011, 06:06 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: It's easy to see where we differ, at least he and I if not he and other trads:

http://www.jimmyakin.org/liturgy/page/2/

"You know, in some ways, radical traditionalism -- as opposed to a legitimate Catholic traditionalism that merely prefers traditional expressions of the faith but does not reject Vatican II and the contemporary Church -- annoys me more than progressivism"

I.e., anyone who wants the abrogation of the NOM is a "radical traditionalist".  We're only "legitimate" if we merely have a preference for one form of the liturgy over another.  I'm not sure what "reject' means, but my guess is unless we say there is nothing wrong with V2 and the "contemporary Church" (whatever that means) we're illegitimate.  Even moreso than progressivists which I read as a nice term for Modernists and Liberals.

Sorry, but even according to Canon Law we're allowed to make our pastoral needs known.  That is completely Catholic and legitimate.  My pastoral need is the abrogation of the NO, bad priests, worse homilies, etc.  If Rome doesn't want to do it, that's a different question.  But there is nothing "illegitimate" about voicing a pastoral need to practice my faith in the way that was approved for centuries if not thousands of years depending on the question.  There is nothing "illegitimate" about a pastoral need to have the Vatican authoritatively comment on and clean up the Council documents.

I don't take his statement as talking about someone like you.  I think he means the sort of people who say the Novus Odo is invalid and it is always a sin to attend it and Vatican II taught heresy, etc.  I am somewhat miffed by that sort of thing myself.
Reply
#20
(01-16-2011, 06:55 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(01-16-2011, 06:06 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: It's easy to see where we differ, at least he and I if not he and other trads:

http://www.jimmyakin.org/liturgy/page/2/

"You know, in some ways, radical traditionalism -- as opposed to a legitimate Catholic traditionalism that merely prefers traditional expressions of the faith but does not reject Vatican II and the contemporary Church -- annoys me more than progressivism"

I.e., anyone who wants the abrogation of the NOM is a "radical traditionalist".  We're only "legitimate" if we merely have a preference for one form of the liturgy over another.  I'm not sure what "reject' means, but my guess is unless we say there is nothing wrong with V2 and the "contemporary Church" (whatever that means) we're illegitimate.  Even moreso than progressivists which I read as a nice term for Modernists and Liberals.

Sorry, but even according to Canon Law we're allowed to make our pastoral needs known.  That is completely Catholic and legitimate.  My pastoral need is the abrogation of the NO, bad priests, worse homilies, etc.  If Rome doesn't want to do it, that's a different question.  But there is nothing "illegitimate" about voicing a pastoral need to practice my faith in the way that was approved for centuries if not thousands of years depending on the question.  There is nothing "illegitimate" about a pastoral need to have the Vatican authoritatively comment on and clean up the Council documents.

I don't take his statement as talking about someone like you.  I think he means the sort of people who say the Novus Odo is invalid and it is always a sin to attend it and Vatican II taught heresy, etc.  I am somewhat miffed by that sort of thing myself.

I went back to re-read this, and I realized I made a mistake.  This is Jimmy's blog, so he's responsible for what is posted, however, it turns out he didn't write it (not that I should know because the author is not attributed).

Apparently, who wrote it was Michelle (I forget her last name) from Catholic Answers.

In any case, whoever wrote it certainly applies it to me since I don't "merely prefer" traditional Catholicism.  And if Akin supports that kind of commentary on his blog, given other things he has said, then my opinion he agrees with it to some extent.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)