Poll: The Problems in the Church Today are Due Mainly to: (Please read OP for details)
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
66
0%
0 0%
13
0%
0 0%
1
0%
0 0%
3
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Crisis: Where Does the Blame Lie?
#51
(10-13-2012, 02:11 PM)kingofspades Wrote: Blaming others. Again.

I smell a stake.

Mmm.  Steak.
Reply
#52


A person who holds the traditionalist postiion on religious liberty, EENS, ecumenism, the Kingship of Christ, the wrongness of the hyper-focus on the dignity of man, the superiority of the TLM and traditional Sacramental rites, the importance of popular devotions, etc. -- AND who may believe these things while also 1) believing that the errors of the post-conciliar era don't derive from Vatican II documents in themselves but in misinterpretations of them due to the false and evil "spirit of Vatican II,"  AND/OR 2) believes that attending the NO Mass, if that is all that is available, is a matter of obedience in fulfilling the 6 precepts of the Church but who desires a full restoration of the TLM and other Sacramental rites -- IS STILL A TRAD according to this site's definition thereof.

This site's definition is on this page. It is clear and simple. Read it:  FETradition

Reply
#53
Who is Fr. Z?
??? ???

Reply
#54
Fisheaters Main Site Wrote:A "traditional Catholic" (or "traditionalist Catholic") is a Catholic who recognizes the above errors in the presentation of Catholic teaching, who sees unwise pastoral decisions for what they are, and who does all in his power to preserve the Holy Faith in a manner consistent with how it has always been understood, and to preserve all of the liturgical rites and customs of the Church as they were before the "spirit of Vatican II" revolution. Traditionalists are not some "branch of the Church," or (necessarily) some "splinter group"; they are usually and quite simply Catholics to whom the adjective "traditional" applies.

I don't think anyone disagrees with this definition.  I sure don't.  I think what causes for consternation is the very issue of the Council documents, and whether or not they (meaning any particular one, not all) are actually wrong and contradictory in and of themselves.  I think it is self evident, in at least one particular part, that they are.  Not talking about ambiguity here, but plain and simple wrong and irreconcilable.  If that is the case, then treating the council as simply a misrepresentation is not traditional because the document(s) are anti-traditional per se.

More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#55
(10-13-2012, 05:35 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: :LOL:  Let's not forget Lumen Gentium ("subsistit in") .

http://www.franciscan-archive.org/apolog...bsist.html  This article highlights the importance of knowing what one's talking about before making grand statements about the Vatican II documents themselves. It's the same with the "elder brother" thing. Until it clicked in my mind about the elder brother in the Bible, I was upset about it. Then I read Scripture. Culture Wars sums up the matter:  http://culturewars.com/2012/ElderBro.htm

Me, I answered the poll question with #2 -- not because I know that there are no problems with the documents themselves (I don't know), but because of my simply knowing I am not educated enough in Latin (the documents' original language), Scholasticism, Theology, Ecclesiology, and Scripture to know and I want to give the documents themselves the benefit of the doubt. I find it a mark of hubris for Catholics to call other trads "neo-Catholic" for either admitting they simply don't know, or don't know all but do know that some of what some trads believe about the documents isn't true, or for believing the the Holy Ghost may well have protected the documents themselves, even if they did end up ambiguous and open to misinterpretation (and were, in fact, severely abused).
Reply
#56
(10-13-2012, 11:21 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(10-13-2012, 05:35 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: :LOL:  Let's not forget Lumen Gentium ("subsistit in") .

http://www.franciscan-archive.org/apolog...bsist.html  This article highlights the importance of knowing what one's talking about before making grand statements about the Vatican II documents themselves. It's the same with the "elder brother" thing. Until it clicked in my mind about the elder brother in the Bible, I was upset about it. Then I read Scripture. Culture Wars sums up the matter:  http://culturewars.com/2012/ElderBro.htm

Me, I answered the poll question with #2 -- not because I know that there are no problems with the documents themselves (I don't know), but because of my simply knowing I am not educated enough in Latin (the documents' original language), Scholasticism, Theology, Ecclesiology, and Scripture to know and I want to give the documents themselves the benefit of the doubt. I find it a mark of hubris for Catholics to call other trads "neo-Catholic" for either admitting they simply don't know, or don't know all but do know that some of what some trads believe about the documents isn't true, or for believing the the Holy Ghost may well have protected the documents themselves, even if they did end up ambiguous and open to misinterpretation (and were, in fact, severely abused).

No one has said they "don't know."  And I don't think they'd be called a neo-cat if they did.  In two of the threads in the VII Documents sub-forum strong cases have been made against error in the documents that have not been sufficiently defended.  A person doesn't have to have scholastic training or a theology degree to know that man doesn't have a right to his own religious impulse.  That's part of the sensus Catholicus which is, according to the site definition, a mark of trads. 

I guess I'm at least assuming that people voting, unless they say otherwise, have reason to believe what they're voting.  That if they vote that there's a problem with the documents they would be prepared to back it up, and that if they voted that there aren't problems with the documents that they would be prepared to back it up.  Perhaps there should have been an option for "I don't know."  Anyways, point is that for those who voted there's no problem with the documents, we're kind of waiting for an explanation. 

The crisis muddies things pretty bad.  But we still have that Catholic sense (or ought to) based on Tradition.  If something isn't compatible with Tradition (like Dignitatis Humanae) then how on earth can it be traditional?  Law of non-contradiction ya know. 
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#57
(10-13-2012, 11:30 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: No one has said they "don't know."  And I don't think they'd be called a neo-cat if they did.  In two of the threads in the VII Documents sub-forum strong cases have been made against error in the documents that have not been sufficiently defended.  A person doesn't have to have scholastic training or a theology degree to know that man doesn't have a right to his own religious impulse.  That's part of the sensus Catholicus which is, according to the site definition, a mark of trads. 

There really wasn't an option for "I don't know." I do wish the poll had focused on the documents themselves as it seems that that's what the real focus was -- e.g., "Do you think the documents of Vatican II are problematic in themselves and unable to be read such that they are consistent with Tradition?" with the responses "yes", "no," "I don't know."

(10-13-2012, 11:30 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: I guess I'm at least assuming that people voting, unless they say otherwise, have reason to believe what they're voting.  That if they vote that there's a problem with the documents they would be prepared to back it up, and that if they voted that there aren't problems with the documents that they would be prepared to back it up.  Perhaps there should have been an option for "I don't know."  Anyways, point is that for those who voted there's no problem with the documents, we're kind of waiting for an explanation. 

The crisis muddies things pretty bad.  But we still have that Catholic sense (or ought to) based on Tradition.  If something isn't compatible with Tradition (like Dignitatis Humanae) then how on earth can it be traditional?  Law of non-contradiction ya know.  

But the thing for me is this:  before I read more, I was convinced that the "elder brother" thing just made no sense whatsoever. Post-Temple Judaism is the synagogue of Satan -- but practicing Jews are our "elder brothers in the Faith"? No way, man! But "elder brother" makes perfect sense given typology. The "subsistet in problem" -- well, not a problem in itself. I'd never have figured that one out on my own; I don't speak Latin. But I spent some time bent out of shape about it before getting set straight by someone who's a Latinist and a Scholastic. Dignitatis Humanae? I don't speak Latin, and it's the documents in their original language that are either problematic in se -- or not. And I simply cannot know. I can read traditionalists' arguments about the documents in English and think, "Well, can't see a way around that.. nope" -- but I wouldn't be amazed to find I'd be wrong were a Latinist Theologian to parse things out and explain how it can be seen as consistent with Tradition. I simply am not educated enough to know, period, the end.  I am smart enough to know that I've been bent out of shape over things that I later discovered, or had explained to me such that it all, made perfect sense, and I dislike sounding off about things I don't know about -- especially when it comes to the Faith and the possibility of leading others from it if I were to go off so sure of myself in spite of my ignorance.

To me what is most important is that Catholics -- no matter how they see the documents themselves and no matter whether they attend the NO Mass if that's all that is available to them -- hold to and pass down the Faith as it as always been believed and that they fight for a restoration of all of the Sacramental rites. Being divisive over how folks see the documents themselves and how they understand the precept about attending Mass is the last thing we need in the battle. We're all on the same side and should start acting like it.

Reply
#58
I voted for the documents of the Council themselves. I would like to also add that while I think the Council texts themselves are inherently flawed, the Novus Ordo is hugely important to this. The average Catholic does not read lots of Catholic books, or read St. Thomas, or read Church history, or read Fisheaters, but the average Catholic does and did go to Mass every Sunday. The average Catholic's interaction with his Catholic faith primarily came through the Mass. The Mass was regarded as unchanging, just like Holy Church and her dogmas. The Mass changed; viola, so did everything else (at least in practice). The importance of this cannot be exaggerated.

The question of whether there is an orthodox interpretation possible for all of the Council documents, including the most offensive sections, is a moot point. It may bear legal significance in the future in terms of sorting out the crisis (although I think that is going to be through direct Divine intervention, but that is another matter entirely). The texts cannot be separated from the intent behind the texts' authors in promoting ambiguity to be exploited later, as JuniorCouncilor pointed out. As I said, while there may be formal and legal importance to this (and that is real importance!), the practical reality is that given the last forty years and the current situation in the Church, it makes not one whit of difference because we are staring the Crisis in the Church straight in the face, whether we want to admit it or not.

So, does Dignitatis Humanaesquare with the Syllabusand Quanta Cura? As Phillipus has pointed out, perhaps in some sense (Crean, Harrison, Pink), but has anybody in authority interpreted it as doing so?

Same with Nostra Aetate.

And Lumen Gentium.

And Gaudium et Spes.

Heck, the other day when the new sub-forum for individual Vatican II documents was created, I picked a random one to give it a go. I took the exhortation of the Extraordinary Form neo-Catholics to heart and "read the document(s) for themselves"! I picked Presbyterum Ordinis, one I have never heard mentioned by trads in connection with problems in the Church. And what did I find? The same garbage, to varying degrees, that is in the other documents, just without the particularly egregious passages to make it infamous. Inferring that concelebration is a normal thing and so its permission is necessary "for pastoral reasons." Introducing the term "presider" for the Celebrant of the Holy Sacrifice. Being disingenuous about changes to the Breviary. And so on and so forth.

I have heard that +Dolan has said that he will be happy when the Documents of Vatican II are publicly burned in St. Peter's Square. I am not a sede, and I do not think that is how the Crisis will end, but that sounds good to me.
Reply
#59
(10-13-2012, 11:10 PM)GottmitunsAlex Wrote: Who is Fr. Z?
??? ???
A particularly well-known neo-Catholic blogger with occasional trad moments who writes What Does the Prayer Really Say? www.wdtprs.com/blog
Reply
#60
Had to go with #1; from what I've read thus far of the documents, there's no end how they worry me; it's hard to read them and not be concerned, or conclude that they are the problem, or at least a huge part of it.

Then there's that darned spirit of VII, whatever that is; that seems to have done as much harm as the documents, themselves.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)