Karl Keating's latest comments on this month's Catholic Answers magazine
#11
(10-29-2012, 04:59 AM)Vincentius Wrote: Keating makes his own modernist rules for his religion.  He must be reminded what Jesus said:  the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.
Right. Quibbling about whether the law was abrogated or not is also a convenient ruse to avoid having a useful discussion about the issue itself, i.e. whether or not women should wear and should be required to wear headcoverings in Church.
Reply
#12
Go to Catholic Answers to become familiar with the scriptural and patristic sources for the basic truths of the Faith, but go elsewhere to learn all of the truths of the Faith and also to avoid an overly positive and optimistic outlook concerning Vatican II and the post-conciliar Magisterium.  So, Keating's good for Catholics coming back to the Faith or for those who are just starting out, but sooner or later, it's time to put away the milk and take up strong meat (I Cor. iii, 2;  Heb. v, 12).
Reply
#13
(10-28-2012, 08:11 PM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote: "Salza draws too much from this. While ecclesiastical traditions can be useful (and more than useful: they can be ennobling), that doesn't make them unchangeable of infallible, Customs can change; revealed doctrines cannot. We need to keep the dsitinction in mind"

On this point, at least, Mr Keating disagrees with an Ecumenical Council:
the Seventh Ecumenical Council, held at Nicea in 787 A.D Wrote:To summarize, we declare that we defend free from any innovations all the written and unwritten ecclesiastical traditions that have been entrusted to us.

One of these is the production of representational art; this is quite in harmony with the history of the spread of the gospel, as it provides confirmation that the becoming man of the Word of God was real and not just imaginary, and as it brings us a similar benefit. For, things that mutually illustrate one another undoubtedly possess one another's message.

Given this state of affairs and stepping out as though on the royal highway, following as we are the God-spoken teaching of our holy fathers and the tradition of the catholic church —  for we recognize that this tradition comes from the holy Spirit who dwells in her —  we decree with full precision and care that, like the figure of the honored and life-giving cross, the revered and holy images, whether painted or made of mosaic or of other suitable material, are to be exposed in the holy churches of God, on sacred instruments and vestments, on walls and panels, in houses and by public ways, these are the images of our Lord, God and savior, Jesus Christ, and of our Lady without blemish, the holy God-bearer, and of the revered angels and of any of the saintly holy men.

The more frequently they are seen in representational art, the more are those who see them drawn to remember and long for those who serve as models, and to pay these images the tribute of salutation and respectful veneration. Certainly this is not the full adoration {latria} in accordance with our faith, which is properly paid only to the divine nature, but it resembles that given to the figure of the honored and life-giving cross, and also to the holy books of the gospels and to other sacred cult objects. Further, people are drawn to honor these images with the offering of incense and lights, as was piously established by ancient custom. Indeed, the honor paid to an image traverses it, reaching the model, and he who venerates the image, venerates the person represented in that image.

So it is that the teaching of our holy fathers is strengthened, namely, the tradition of the catholic church which has received the gospel from one end of the earth to the other. So it is that we really follow Paul, who spoke in Christ, and the entire divine apostolic group and the holiness of the fathers, clinging fast to the traditions which we have received. So it is that we sing out with the prophets the hymns of victory to the church: Rejoice exceedingly O daughter of Zion, proclaim O daughter of Jerusalem; enjoy your happiness and gladness with a full heart. The Lord has removed away from you the injustices of your enemies, you have been redeemed from the hand of your foes. The Lord the king is in your midst, you will never more see evil, and peace will be upon you for time eternal.

Therefore all those who dare to think or teach anything different, or who follow the accursed heretics in rejecting ecclesiastical traditions, or who devise innovations, or who spurn anything entrusted to the church (whether it be the gospel or the figure of the cross or any example of representational art or any martyr's holy relic), or who fabricate perverted and evil prejudices against cherishing any of the lawful traditions of the Catholic Church, or who secularize the sacred objects and saintly monasteries, we order that they be suspended if they are bishops or clerics, and excommunicated if they are monks or lay people. (Decree of Definition)
Reply
#14
I think that Karl Keating is mainly concerned with evangelization. You can see from the forum that he owns (CAF) that he is very tolerant of non-Catholics, and he allows them to promote their views as long as they aren't anti-Catholic. All manner of non-Catholics, including Gnostics, Wiccans, and Pagans all have a voice on CAF. In contrast, traditional Catholics on CAF aren't able to express their love and attachment of the TLM even on the traditional subforum without condemnation from other Catholics on CAF. So there's a double-standard. Maybe he sees traditionalism as the antithesis of the new evangelization. What he doesn't seem to understand is that many non-Catholics are drawn to the TLM and a firm, strong but charitable proclamation and adherence to the teachings of the Church. IMO, it's the Church's strengths that many non-Catholics are drawn to, rather than a wishy-washy watered-down version of it.
Reply
#15
(10-28-2012, 09:24 PM)Larry Wrote: For guys like Keating, it's always about the "law", never the faith.

If you're arguing against people who tend toward the law side of things, you want to speak their language. Let's be frank, traditionalists in general are all about the law in the vast majority of cases.


Concerning head coverings, from what I see here, Keating is correct. We'd have to go to St Paul and see what is required (if anything) through Scripture, since there is indeed no Church law requiring head covering. There is no doubt concerning that. For sure, though, head covering is an immemorial custom of the Church, and, depending on the true interpretation of the teaching of St Paul, may be part of Sacred Tradition.

As for Mr. Keating's animus towards some traditionalist Catholics, why not start a website which charitably corrects him called "Catholic Answers Catholic Answers"?
Reply
#16
(10-29-2012, 07:28 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: Concerning head coverings, from what I see here, Keating is correct. We'd have to go to St Paul and see what is required (if anything) through Scripture, since there is indeed no Church law requiring head covering. There is no doubt concerning that. For sure, though, head covering is an immemorial custom of the Church, and, depending on the true interpretation of the teaching of St Paul, may be part of Sacred Tradition.

Did you even read the argument about head coverings? There is a law, because it was explicit in the 1917 Code, which codified an immemorial custom of the Catholic Church (which itself carries the force of law apart from the Law), and because the issue is unmentioned in the 1983 Code, which states that if something is not addressed which deals with something in the previous Code, and/or an item of immemorial custom, it is still Law.
Reply
#17
(10-29-2012, 07:28 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: As for Mr. Keating's animus towards some traditionalist Catholics, why not start a website which charitably corrects him called "Catholic Answers Catholic Answers"?

Unfortunately, most of us don't have the seed money built up from years of ambulance chasing to fund such a venture.  More's the pity.
Reply
#18
(10-29-2012, 07:52 PM)MRose Wrote: Did you even read the argument about head coverings? There is a law, because it was explicit in the 1917 Code, which codified an immemorial custom of the Catholic Church (which itself carries the force of law apart from the Law), and because the issue is unmentioned in the 1983 Code, which states that if something is not addressed which deals with something in the previous Code, and/or an item of immemorial custom, it is still Law.

Yes, I read the argument. Seeing as former canon law only referred to the western churches, and seeing as current canon law abrogated the previous code and no longer positively requires it, this would seem to leave head covering to "stand on its own merits", so to speak, albeit strengthened in its force by formerly being a ecclesiastical law. It is the common opinion that a woman does not sin by not covering her head, even if it is ancient and recommended. There is still debate whether St Paul meant to teach a natural law, or was appealing to nature to support a custom. As it stands, though, canons 21 and 28 do not support that there is a law, but that there is an unrevoked custom. Card. Burke holds that it is not a sin.

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/head_...church.htm
Reply
#19
Quote: People like him are more dangerous to the faith than secularists, liberals, liberal Catholics, and atheists because of the veneer of orthodoxy.
Keating is a neoCatholic.  Neo-Catholicism is the gravest threat to the Faith.  
Reply
#20
Quote: Card. Burke holds that it is not a sin.

If you go by what the Church teaches, then you have a moral assurance that it is licit.  Therefore such ignorant women do not sin.

However, allowing women to go to Church without a head covering is an heresy.  Any cleric who says it is ok is preaching heresy.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)