Hardrock-Mass
#81
(07-19-2012, 12:57 AM)GottmitunsAlex Wrote:
(07-19-2012, 12:39 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(07-18-2012, 11:37 PM)GottmitunsAlex Wrote:
(07-18-2012, 11:35 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: In that case, wouldn't we have to say that quite a few pre-VII popes also didn't fully approve of the Mass? It'd be kind of odd to say that Pope Ss. Gregory the Great and Pius V didn't approve of the traditional Mass.
Bad analogy.

How?
Because the NO did not emerge/evolve as fruit of centuries of Catholic tradition as did the TLM.

The NO is a man made, man-centered mass. 2 years in the making, 50 years in the devolving of liturgy.

There is no comparison. There should be no comparison.

Okay, but we were talking about the Holy Father's relationship with the TLM in light of his suggesting a "mutual enrichment." Whether or not one thinks this is a good idea, the point is only that changing the Mass does not in itself show that one disapproves of the Mass.
Reply
#82
(07-18-2012, 09:53 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(07-18-2012, 09:36 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote:
(07-18-2012, 09:03 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(07-18-2012, 12:12 AM)John Lane Wrote: Jayne, you can't deal with heretics by making them head of the CDF. 

Which is why the Pope did not make a heretic the head of the CDF. 

Liberation theology = heresy.  If you can disprove this equation using a traditional source, I'd be interested.  I consider it to be pretty firmly established.

Liberation theology covers a range of ideas.  Some of the ideas and some of the theologians are wrong, even heretical, others are not.  The term itself was not coined until the 1970s so obviously there are no traditional sources saying anything about it one way or the other.  If we were to break it down into specific ideas we could evaluate each of them in terms of traditional sources.  

At its best, liberation theology looks at our duty as Catholics to serve God through the poor. Orthopraxis is based on orthodoxy.  At its worst, the concern for the poor overshadows the love of God. Orthopraxis dominates orthodoxy.  There is no question that ++Muller has demonstrated concern for the poor.  I haven't seen anything that indicates he is involved in the unacceptable forms of liberation theology.

Jayne, there you go rationalizing the whole issue into a non-issue again. Avoid being the rationalist you learned to be while seeking your m/div.


And having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to disseminate poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth from which they hold their hand, none that they do not strive to corrupt. Further, none is more skilful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious arts; for they double the parts of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; - Pope St. Pius X's  - On the Doctrine of Modernists
Reply
#83
(07-19-2012, 01:08 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(07-19-2012, 12:57 AM)GottmitunsAlex Wrote:
(07-19-2012, 12:39 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(07-18-2012, 11:37 PM)GottmitunsAlex Wrote:
(07-18-2012, 11:35 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: In that case, wouldn't we have to say that quite a few pre-VII popes also didn't fully approve of the Mass? It'd be kind of odd to say that Pope Ss. Gregory the Great and Pius V didn't approve of the traditional Mass.
Bad analogy.

How?
Because the NO did not emerge/evolve as fruit of centuries of Catholic tradition as did the TLM.

The NO is a man made, man-centered mass. 2 years in the making, 50 years in the devolving of liturgy.

There is no comparison. There should be no comparison.

Okay, but we were talking about the Holy Father's relationship with the TLM in light of his suggesting a "mutual enrichment." Whether or not one thinks this is a good idea, the point is only that changing the Mass does not in itself show that one disapproves of the Mass.

Replacing it with the NO Liturgy does.

Reply
#84
(07-17-2012, 11:17 PM)Guardian Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 07:39 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 07:16 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 07:02 PM)Stubborn Wrote: I'm surprised no one has mentioned anything about going to this NO to make their Sunday Obligation, certainly this qualifies for that no?

I wouldn't go, even if it were my only option for Mass.

Suppose this priest was elected the next pope, you wouldn't go to his NO then to make your Sunday Obligation?

Stop baiting.  You know perfectly well that in order to make a Mass (NO or TLM) valid you need correct form, matter and intention.  All those are doubtful at best in this situation.  Those of us that support going to the NO to fufill our Sunday obligation (which we don't lightly desregard because its a precept of the Church!!) would stay far away from this attrocity. 

What do you think, this "Rock mass" is doubtful because of the music? Or is it the performing priest with long hair? Or is it just a combination of things *you* deem inappropriate? He stopped the show for a few so he could perform the narrative didn't he? - or was I not seeing that properly. I dunno, aside from some acrobatics, all NOs pretty much look the same to me so I may be mistaken about him holding up the show for the narrative.

All the rock mass is, is a (not "the")  NO "High Mass". If you do not see that, then you need to re-examine what the NO Liturgy is.
FYI - the rock mass you call an atrocity is no different than the "reverent" EWTN type NO Liturgy - they are both an atrocity -  the only difference is one has more bells and whistles - which obviously is not your particular brand of NO as it most likely only appeals to a limited audience.

Perhaps you deem this rock NO doubtful  because the particular theatrics of this NO are more exaggerated than what you may be accustomed to, but perhaps if in your mind, you continue to just grit your teeth and suffer through this one for the Gipper again, (you know, "take one for the team") to meet your obligation, you will find that the rock NO is really only aesthetically different than the EWTN variety of NO. Theatrics should not play a part in determining validity because everyone's tastes are different - same as pretty much every NO is different.

Reply
#85
I didn't watch the video, but I doubt I would find it much more troubling than I do a) the rite of communion as given in the NO or b) the stupid "rite" of let's turn and say hi to our neighbor right after the consecration.

Orthopraxy = orthodoxy?
Reply
#86
(07-18-2012, 11:05 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote:
(07-18-2012, 09:53 PM)JayneK Wrote: Orthopraxis is based on orthodoxy.  At its worst, the concern for the poor overshadows the love of God. Orthopraxis dominates orthodoxy.  

Yes.  Interesting that (if memory serves) in the interview, he made no effort to defend the orthodoxy of Fr. Gutierrez, only his orthopraxy.

Orthodoxy is awfully outdated anyway, it would seem.

The only comment that I can think of speaks of orthodoxy and orthopraxis together.  Which one are you thinking of?

(07-18-2012, 11:05 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: Here's another thing I want to know.  You keep making the claim that the appointment of Muller demonstrates a desire to crack down on dissident bishops.  Where on earth do you get that from?

I got this idea from Fr. Z (who, unlike me, is a Vatican insider.)
Reply
#87
(07-17-2012, 11:57 PM)John Lane Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 06:31 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 05:52 PM)GottmitunsAlex Wrote: Hence the need to call them out and demand an explanation right then and there. Let those men clarify their statements/writings/declarations. No big deal.

Haven't you started enough threads on this topic?  Do you have to derail other threads for going on about it too?

Actually, you derailed this thread.  You dragged it onto the question of Benedict's responsibility for these evils, and when called out for that derailing, you admitted it and described it as a pre-emptive strike.

JayneK has met her match.  Bravo, Mr. Lane.
Reply
#88
(07-19-2012, 04:48 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(07-18-2012, 09:53 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(07-18-2012, 09:36 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote:
(07-18-2012, 09:03 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(07-18-2012, 12:12 AM)John Lane Wrote: Jayne, you can't deal with heretics by making them head of the CDF. 

Which is why the Pope did not make a heretic the head of the CDF. 

Liberation theology = heresy.  If you can disprove this equation using a traditional source, I'd be interested.  I consider it to be pretty firmly established.

Liberation theology covers a range of ideas.  Some of the ideas and some of the theologians are wrong, even heretical, others are not.  The term itself was not coined until the 1970s so obviously there are no traditional sources saying anything about it one way or the other.  If we were to break it down into specific ideas we could evaluate each of them in terms of traditional sources.  

At its best, liberation theology looks at our duty as Catholics to serve God through the poor. Orthopraxis is based on orthodoxy.  At its worst, the concern for the poor overshadows the love of God. Orthopraxis dominates orthodoxy.  There is no question that ++Muller has demonstrated concern for the poor.  I haven't seen anything that indicates he is involved in the unacceptable forms of liberation theology.

Jayne, there you go rationalizing the whole issue into a non-issue again. Avoid being the rationalist you learned to be while seeking your m/div.

I admit that I am rational and educated.  This is not the same as being a rationalist.
Reply
#89
(07-19-2012, 11:12 AM)ImpyTerwilliger Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 11:57 PM)John Lane Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 06:31 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(07-17-2012, 05:52 PM)GottmitunsAlex Wrote: Hence the need to call them out and demand an explanation right then and there. Let those men clarify their statements/writings/declarations. No big deal.

Haven't you started enough threads on this topic?  Do you have to derail other threads for going on about it too?

Actually, you derailed this thread.  You dragged it onto the question of Benedict's responsibility for these evils, and when called out for that derailing, you admitted it and described it as a pre-emptive strike.

JayneK has met her match.  Bravo, Mr. Lane.

Mr. Lane does not appear to have understood the significance of the smiley that accompanied the "pre-emptive strike" comment.  It was not an admission but a joke.  I went on to give my serious opinion.  I had thought this so obvious, that I had not bothered to reply to the post you quote above.

There are a lot of people on FE whom I consider holier than me and some whom I consider smarter than me.  Mr. Lane, at this point, only seems a contender for the first list.
Reply
#90
(07-19-2012, 11:37 AM)JayneK Wrote:
(07-19-2012, 04:48 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(07-18-2012, 09:53 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(07-18-2012, 09:36 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote:
(07-18-2012, 09:03 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(07-18-2012, 12:12 AM)John Lane Wrote: Jayne, you can't deal with heretics by making them head of the CDF. 

Which is why the Pope did not make a heretic the head of the CDF. 

Liberation theology = heresy.  If you can disprove this equation using a traditional source, I'd be interested.  I consider it to be pretty firmly established.

Liberation theology covers a range of ideas.  Some of the ideas and some of the theologians are wrong, even heretical, others are not.  The term itself was not coined until the 1970s so obviously there are no traditional sources saying anything about it one way or the other.  If we were to break it down into specific ideas we could evaluate each of them in terms of traditional sources.  

At its best, liberation theology looks at our duty as Catholics to serve God through the poor. Orthopraxis is based on orthodoxy.  At its worst, the concern for the poor overshadows the love of God. Orthopraxis dominates orthodoxy.  There is no question that ++Muller has demonstrated concern for the poor.  I haven't seen anything that indicates he is involved in the unacceptable forms of liberation theology.

Jayne, there you go rationalizing the whole issue into a non-issue again. Avoid being the rationalist you learned to be while seeking your m/div.

I admit that I am rational and educated.  This is not the same as being a rationalist.

Surely you jest - - - you just did it again.......fyi, that makes you a rationalist - believe it.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)