Jan 21 Bp Williamson column
#81
(01-24-2012, 03:48 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-24-2012, 12:58 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(01-23-2012, 11:48 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-23-2012, 10:43 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(01-23-2012, 10:01 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-23-2012, 09:52 PM)JayneK Wrote: When people are raising their children to think of "Novus Ordo" as a religion - one that is not Catholic- something is very wrong.

Did I miss something? Is this something new? I think you'll find people have been saying this for the last 30 years or so, certainly the Novus Ordo can be seen as a different religion in the sense as it has been so so contaminated by modernism that it is no longer recognisable as the Catholic faith. The disrespect with which Our Eucharistic Lord is treated, the woeful understanding of the Mass and The Sacrament of Penance as well as the denial of the Social Reign of Christ effectively underline this point.

It is important to point out however that the SSPX does not claim to be 'The Church' and has emphasised that point repeatedly.

It is recognizable as Catholic by millions upon millions of people.  There are some who refuse to recognize it.  That does not mean it is not recognizable.

The SSPX does not officially claim to be the Church, but there are many who, by their words and actions, show this to be their belief.  And this is why people are asking questions about "schismatic attitude".  It is a huge problem and pretending it doesn't exist does not effectively address the problem.

It wouldn't matter if millions of people did or didn't recognise it, that wouldn't make it any or less true. You appear to be committing what I like to call the 'Democratic' logical fallacy, namely the idea that lots of people believing something makes it true or vice versa or even more likely to be or not to be true, this is illogical something is either true or not and belief in it or lack thereof does not change this.

I am not committing that fallacy at all.  You have missed the point.  You made the claim that the Novus Ordo is "no longer recognisable as the Catholic faith".  While numbers are, as you say, irrelevant to truth claims, you were making a claim about recognizability.  The fact that large numbers of people recognize it is as Catholic disproves your assertion.  Now if you want to say that you personally cannot recognize it as Catholic, that is legitimate enough. 

No I am afraid that is still the democracy error, it doesnt matter if lots of people recognise it as the Catholic faith or not that does not make the catholic faith. Let me give you an example, if A who has lived in the desert all his life gets together with all his friends and decides that X (which happens to be a tree) is actually a bush, and B, who lives in the forest, comes along and says 'Er.. thats a tree' they may all laugh at him and he may be outnumbered a 100 to 1 but X is still a tree and not a bush. The relevance of this to the discussion is that the people who believe that the NO are mostly ignorant of key elements of the Catholic faith, I can guarantee most of them haven't read say Catholic literature from the 1800 or 1900's, early 20th century, if so they'd question why there was such a massive difference of beliefs. I mention those ages in particular because whilst many people may have read the writings of the saints and possibly the church fathers, edifying reading and spiritual direction is one thing, dogma is quite another and the contradictions between say Ludwigg Ott's 'fundamentals of Catholic dogma', guides for those entering the Catholic church written in the late 1800's, moral theology, denzinger and modern theology is blindingly obvious. 

A very good example of this ignorance is 'The Social Reign of Christ' it was most explicitly taught by the popes from Leo XIII to Pius XII and yet I don't know a single NO Catholic who even knows what it means, Complete ignorance of Modernism and moral theology is another example.

If that is what you meant, you should have said "the Novus Ordo is not recognizable as the Catholic faith by those who are knowledgeable about it."  Your comment as stated was empirically incorrect.
Reply
#82
(01-24-2012, 04:30 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(01-24-2012, 03:48 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-24-2012, 12:58 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(01-23-2012, 11:48 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-23-2012, 10:43 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(01-23-2012, 10:01 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-23-2012, 09:52 PM)JayneK Wrote: When people are raising their children to think of "Novus Ordo" as a religion - one that is not Catholic- something is very wrong.

Did I miss something? Is this something new? I think you'll find people have been saying this for the last 30 years or so, certainly the Novus Ordo can be seen as a different religion in the sense as it has been so so contaminated by modernism that it is no longer recognisable as the Catholic faith. The disrespect with which Our Eucharistic Lord is treated, the woeful understanding of the Mass and The Sacrament of Penance as well as the denial of the Social Reign of Christ effectively underline this point.

It is important to point out however that the SSPX does not claim to be 'The Church' and has emphasised that point repeatedly.

It is recognizable as Catholic by millions upon millions of people.  There are some who refuse to recognize it.  That does not mean it is not recognizable.

The SSPX does not officially claim to be the Church, but there are many who, by their words and actions, show this to be their belief.  And this is why people are asking questions about "schismatic attitude".  It is a huge problem and pretending it doesn't exist does not effectively address the problem.

It wouldn't matter if millions of people did or didn't recognise it, that wouldn't make it any or less true. You appear to be committing what I like to call the 'Democratic' logical fallacy, namely the idea that lots of people believing something makes it true or vice versa or even more likely to be or not to be true, this is illogical something is either true or not and belief in it or lack thereof does not change this.

I am not committing that fallacy at all.  You have missed the point.  You made the claim that the Novus Ordo is "no longer recognisable as the Catholic faith".  While numbers are, as you say, irrelevant to truth claims, you were making a claim about recognizability.  The fact that large numbers of people recognize it is as Catholic disproves your assertion.  Now if you want to say that you personally cannot recognize it as Catholic, that is legitimate enough. 

No I am afraid that is still the democracy error, it doesnt matter if lots of people recognise it as the Catholic faith or not that does not make the catholic faith. Let me give you an example, if A who has lived in the desert all his life gets together with all his friends and decides that X (which happens to be a tree) is actually a bush, and B, who lives in the forest, comes along and says 'Er.. thats a tree' they may all laugh at him and he may be outnumbered a 100 to 1 but X is still a tree and not a bush. The relevance of this to the discussion is that the people who believe that the NO are mostly ignorant of key elements of the Catholic faith, I can guarantee most of them haven't read say Catholic literature from the 1800 or 1900's, early 20th century, if so they'd question why there was such a massive difference of beliefs. I mention those ages in particular because whilst many people may have read the writings of the saints and possibly the church fathers, edifying reading and spiritual direction is one thing, dogma is quite another and the contradictions between say Ludwigg Ott's 'fundamentals of Catholic dogma', guides for those entering the Catholic church written in the late 1800's, moral theology, denzinger and modern theology is blindingly obvious. 

A very good example of this ignorance is 'The Social Reign of Christ' it was most explicitly taught by the popes from Leo XIII to Pius XII and yet I don't know a single NO Catholic who even knows what it means, Complete ignorance of Modernism and moral theology is another example.

If that is what you meant, you should have said "the Novus Ordo is not recognizable as the Catholic faith by those who are knowledgeable about it."  Your comment as stated was empirically incorrect.

Oh now we're being empirical? Didn't know this was a science forum  :eyeroll:
Reply
#83
(01-24-2012, 03:52 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Know they just think the rest of us haven't got the 'fullness of the spirit' (confirmation clearly wasn't enough for them) and the church prior to V2 and since the apostolic age didn't have the holy spirit either, thats why we need a pentecost, doesn't sound very Catholic to me  ???

I agree.  It is probably heretical, but not a schismatic attitude.
Reply
#84
(01-24-2012, 03:53 PM)TrentCath Wrote: As for this nonsense of schismatic attitude, what about the dozens if not hundreds of priests and cardinals who think that V2 created a new church? or that the church prior to V2 was wrong? I think they've not only got a schismatic attitude but are really in schism with their own faith, the words you are bandying around are a double edged sword, they apply more to legitimate church authority than they do to the SSPX.

I agree that this is a schismatic attitude, but I wouldn't go as far as calling it schism.
Reply
#85
(01-24-2012, 04:36 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(01-24-2012, 03:52 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Know they just think the rest of us haven't got the 'fullness of the spirit' (confirmation clearly wasn't enough for them) and the church prior to V2 and since the apostolic age didn't have the holy spirit either, thats why we need a pentecost, doesn't sound very Catholic to me  ???

I agree.  It is probably heretical, but not a schismatic attitude.

I forgot you were the authority on made up words  :LOL:
Reply
#86
(01-24-2012, 04:39 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(01-24-2012, 03:53 PM)TrentCath Wrote: As for this nonsense of schismatic attitude, what about the dozens if not hundreds of priests and cardinals who think that V2 created a new church? or that the church prior to V2 was wrong? I think they've not only got a schismatic attitude but are really in schism with their own faith, the words you are bandying around are a double edged sword, they apply more to legitimate church authority than they do to the SSPX.

I agree that this is a schismatic attitude, but I wouldn't go as far as calling it schism.

so now half the church has a schismatic attitude, this is interesting
Reply
#87
(01-24-2012, 01:02 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(01-24-2012, 12:02 AM)Gerard Wrote: The question people should be asking is why the lack of a "schismatic attitude" in the liberal parishes? Isn't the fact that they often hate the Church openly and are not considered "schismatic" in their attitude a problem?

They do have a schismatic attitude and it is a problem.  However I do not see how it is relevant to a discussion of the schismatic attitude that often appears in the SSPX.

It's relevant in terms of proportionality for one thing.  And whether or not they genuinely have a schismatic attitude is moot considering the fact that most of them don't know what schism means and the bishops and the Pope don't seem to care enough: 

1) to teach them what it means

2) to bring them back from their attitude, so it must be fine with them.
Reply
#88
(01-24-2012, 02:28 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(01-24-2012, 02:16 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote:
(01-24-2012, 02:04 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Phenomenology has never been condemned as far as I know.

Fox guarding the hen-house you see...

I guess, but you can even find conservative Catholics, Erich Przywara and Dietrich von Hildebrand for example, who were influenced by phenomenology and yet continued to defend traditional teachings.

That is such a damning statement of the recent Popes.  It's not the philosophy as some have tried to defend with the "the rest of us just don't understand."  It's the men themselves who failed to defend the teachings of the Church.
Reply
#89
(01-24-2012, 11:28 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(01-24-2012, 01:02 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(01-24-2012, 12:02 AM)Gerard Wrote: The question people should be asking is why the lack of a "schismatic attitude" in the liberal parishes? Isn't the fact that they often hate the Church openly and are not considered "schismatic" in their attitude a problem?

They do have a schismatic attitude and it is a problem.  However I do not see how it is relevant to a discussion of the schismatic attitude that often appears in the SSPX.

It's relevant in terms of proportionality for one thing.  And whether or not they genuinely have a schismatic attitude is moot considering the fact that most of them don't know what schism means and the bishops and the Pope don't seem to care enough: 

1) to teach them what it means

2) to bring them back from their attitude, so it must be fine with them.

The teachings coming out of the Vatican have been fine.  The Pope is limited in what he can do to enforce them.
Reply
#90
(01-24-2012, 11:33 PM)JayneK Wrote: The teachings coming out of the Vatican have been fine.  The Pope is limited in what he can do to enforce them.

The teachings have been muted, especially compared to the way those teachings have been presented prior to John XXIII. 

The policies coming out of the Vatican have not aided expressing those teachings in any way either.  Oddly, they have lead people to believe ideas opposed to the teachings of the Church are actually teachings of the Church.

The Popes have chosen to limit themselves. Paul VI, JPII and BXVI have followed Hans Kung's suggestions for the way the Pope is to behave as if they took direct orders from him. 

The bad bishops and bad Cardinals were appointed by the Popes.  When it was manifest that they were genuinely bad, the Popes did nothing to correct the issue. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)