tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post4293681736816040336..comments2024-03-28T16:16:51.062-04:00Comments on Musings of a Pertinacious Papist: Why Catholic traditionalists are so annoyingUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-68845965590945910872016-02-14T18:43:49.430-05:002016-02-14T18:43:49.430-05:00Thank you. God bless you. We are often not easy ...Thank you. God bless you. We are often not easy to love or be patient towards. May He have mercy on us all!techdecisionshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05100078324974120443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-49760996818137530552014-05-08T23:23:10.779-04:002014-05-08T23:23:10.779-04:00"I understand what you mean Robert and indeed..."I understand what you mean Robert and indeed QUO PRIMUM was binding on everyone 1570. But since then we have had other Popes who have changed this directive."<br /><br />No pope has an authority greater than another pope. Which means in practical terms that the last guy is right about everything. Which means that the Church hierarchy is a bastion of relativism, and always has been, and that today's apologists butter their bread by denying the indisputable for $$$.Fartein Valennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-63294454117267697472014-05-07T08:56:46.046-04:002014-05-07T08:56:46.046-04:00Dear Ms. White,
Good points.
BTW, I've see...Dear Ms. White,<br /><br />Good points. <br /><br />BTW, I've seen Mr. Voris at a TLM at our parish in Detroit.<br /><br />The trouble with saying someone is or is not a "Trad" is the diffuseness of the semantic range of reference.<br /><br />If, on the one hand, one used a term like to mean someone who is an exclusive patron of the Extraordinary Form (EF), a confessional Catholic monarchial state, etc., then he might not qualify.<br /><br />If, on the other, one used it to refer to someone who defends the EF and traditional Catholic social teaching, and opposes the political accommodationism of the Catholic "right" and "left," Communion in the hand, the wreckovation of traditional church architecture, etc., then he might qualify.<br /><br />I don't use such terms as having hard-and-fast definitions, because people rarely fit tidily into them. Which is why I avoid using labels for myself, other than "Catholic."<br /><br />But I understand your point, which is well-taken.Pertinacious Papisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03213911570586726075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-29695888479856660972014-05-06T22:29:56.392-04:002014-05-06T22:29:56.392-04:00I understand what you mean Robert and indeed QUO P...I understand what you mean Robert and indeed QUO PRIMUM was binding on everyone 1570. But since then we have had other Popes who have changed this directive. No Pope can go against and ex cathedra statement but no successor of Pope Pius V is held to his non infallible bull.<br /><br />Donna<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-55286305918581181822014-05-06T21:07:02.877-04:002014-05-06T21:07:02.877-04:00Yes, Donna, QP is binding upon the entire HMC; wha...Yes, Donna, QP is binding upon the entire HMC; what is not mandated is (what we call) the TLM. It is as if I were to say to my family 'A3 I want you to do the dishes, A2 you take out the garbage, Ab, since you are my favorite, you have a bowl of ice cream; honey, let's you and I go see how the Tigers are doing.' My order, though entailing a different requirement for each individual towards whom it was directed, would have been intended for the entire group.RFGA, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11981669525574676528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-81307143390544679212014-05-06T17:24:30.407-04:002014-05-06T17:24:30.407-04:00Mike Voris isn't a Trad. He's a good guy, ...Mike Voris isn't a Trad. He's a good guy, and a good Catholic, but he ain't a Trad, which I'm sure he'd tell you if you asked. But he also doesn't "hate" the TLM. I know this because he usually attends it at least once whenever he visits us in Rome, and seems to be doing so of his own free will.Hilary Jane Margaret Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03771332473693479830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-18934373330511308942014-05-05T17:46:10.120-04:002014-05-05T17:46:10.120-04:00Dave Armstrong,
When you wrote
"All it tell...Dave Armstrong,<br /><br />When you wrote<br /><br />"All it tells us is that the only things you think are important are liturgy and a commitment against ecumenism", <br /><br />you appear to dismiss a rich source of doctrine and authentic concern that "ecumenism" already has a meaning before "let's all come together in each others' houses" became all the rage. <br /><br />To defend the Mass, I suspect others will, intelligently, argue, IS to defend Catholic teaching. To oppose the currently accepted form of ecumenism IS to defend Catholic truth from indifferentism and false irenicism. <br /><br />Chris Garton-ZaveskyChrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-7653591119558495762014-05-05T16:04:47.817-04:002014-05-05T16:04:47.817-04:00Robert Allen:
I have had similar discussions throu...Robert Allen:<br />I have had similar discussions through the years. I don’t know if you number among those who believe that QUO PRIMUM is infallible but many people I have known through the years do. The criteria for Infallibility:<br /><br />1. The Pope must speak Ex Cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) in his official capacity.<br />2. The decision must be binding on the whole Church.<br />3. It must be on a matter of faith or morals.<br />4. He must be intending to teach.<br /><br />Below is the quote from Quo Primum. The encyclical does not is not binding on the whole Church, therefore not infallible.<br /><br />“This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. However, if this Missal, which we have seen fit to publish, be more agreeable to these latter, We grant them permission to celebrate Mass according to its rite, provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate or of their whole Chapter, everything else to the contrary notwithstanding.”<br /><br />Pax et bonum<br /><br />Donna<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-11521049198542647212014-05-05T14:07:29.539-04:002014-05-05T14:07:29.539-04:00'Of course, your comment tells me nothing abou...'Of course, your comment tells me nothing about why my apologetics is bad, or why two of my book titles are deficient. It's no argument or true response at all. All it tells us is that the only things you think are important are liturgy and a commitment against ecumenism: both classic "traditionalist" and radical Catholic reactionary distinctives (sic).'<br /><br />My response, thought admittedly terse, does tell you everything you need to know about my pique: you folks are failing to get at the root of the problem, viz., the Protestanization of our liturgy and its insidious effect upon the life of the faithful. I must say though, in labeling my concerns 'classic ...' you do manage to commit one of the best tu quoques of all time. Of course that appellation fits my concerns: I ALREADY TOLD YOU THAT I'M A TRADITIONALIST.<br /><br />'You apparently see no importance in apologetics or defense of doctrine. I find that fascinating, in that it seems to presuppose that apologetics was irrelevant before the notorious, evil, wicked Vatican II, as well as after. That would be big news to St. Francis de Sales, Pascal, Bishop Bossuet, Cardinal Gibbons, St. Thomas More, Erasmus, St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal Wiseman, Blessed Cardinal Newman, Ronald Knox, G. K. Chesterton, Frank Sheed, Robert Hugh Benson, Hilaire Belloc, and many others.'<br /><br />I have read and greatly admire the works of all of those writers, especially FDS, BB, and HB. (I just discovered RHB and plan on reading BWA this summer.) The difference between them and you is that they were (or at least would have been had the question arose) staunch defenders of the Mass of the Ages and for that reason reliable guides as to what it means to be a RC.<br /><br />'But to you (if you are consistent with your present remarks) that is all "bad" because it's not what YOU are most concerned about. It's your way or the highway. Nothing else matters. That is the classic pharisaical attitude: so roundly condemned by our Lord.'<br /><br />To borrow a phrase from Barry Goldwater, extremism in the defense of tradition is no vice. Moreover it is most definitely not MY way for which I advocate, but the Mass of St. Gregory the Great and St. Pious V, as handed down from the Apostles who were with our Lord in the Upper Room when He 1st said 'Do this in memory of me.'<br /><br />'Lastly, bad liturgy was not "wrought by V2". It had nothing to do with that (V2 called for the retention of Latin), but everything to do with liturgical liberals who hijacked the council and put their own junk into place. The Pauline liturgy is not a bad thing; it's a reformed thing, and if rightly done (this is the problem), every bit as orthodox and reverent as the Old Mass. Thus, I have attended a very traditional, reverent, Novus Ordo Latin Mass at my parish since 1991.'<br /><br />Ah the old intentions vs. implementation distinction. But here we do get to the heart of the matter. St. Pious V, in combating Protestantism, codified the Sacred Liturgy and thence declared that anyone attempting to alter any of its aspects, including the language in which it was to be prayed, should be anathema. The fact that you do not regard the NO as a violation of this papal edict is what (sadly) divides us.<br /><br />RFGA, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11981669525574676528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-26330421191691937342014-05-05T12:02:44.041-04:002014-05-05T12:02:44.041-04:00By the way, as to my hat, it is a fedora. See:
ht...By the way, as to my hat, it is a fedora. See:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedora<br /><br />. . . not a "cowboy hat": which usually has curved sides:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowboy_hat<br /><br />But I wouldn't expect a nattering nabob with an inane anonymous nickname to understand such subtle differences.<br /><br />If a mocking comparison is to be made, it would be much more to the gangsters of the 20s and 30s, or movie stars in the 40s and 50s, who often wore fedoras, rather than to the cowboys.<br /><br />I even did a whole series of photos on Facebook, trying to (tongue-in-cheek) emulate the old "gangster look": with a black leather jacket and white tie: hardly a "cowboy" look.<br /><br />I'm from Michigan ((Detroit), and I can vouch for the fact that virtually no one wears a "cowboy hat" here. That's mostly a western and sometimes southern style. <br /><br />Learn history, learn fashions, with five minutes of online research, and you won't look so foolish and out to sea when you comment.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-59805756781463730462014-05-05T11:49:53.494-04:002014-05-05T11:49:53.494-04:00Hi Robert,
Thanks for your feedback and for havin...Hi Robert,<br /><br />Thanks for your feedback and for having the guts to refrain from anonymity.<br /><br />Of course, your comment tells me nothing about why my apologetics is bad, or why two of my book titles are deficient. It's no argument or true response at all. <br /><br />All it tells us is that the only things you think are important are liturgy and a commitment against ecumenism: both classic "traditionalist" and radical Catholic reactionary distinctives.<br /><br />You apparently see no importance in apologetics or defense of doctrine. I find that fascinating, in that it seems to presuppose that apologetics was irrelevant before the notorious, evil, wicked Vatican II, as well as after.<br /><br />That would be big news to St. Francis de Sales, Pascal, Bishop Bossuet, Cardinal Gibbons, St. Thomas More, Erasmus, St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal Wiseman, Blessed Cardinal Newman, Ronald Knox, G. K. Chesterton, Frank Sheed, Robert Hugh Benson, Hilaire Belloc, and many others.<br /><br />But to you (if you are consistent with your present remarks) that is all "bad" because it's not what YOU are most concerned about. It's your way or the highway. Nothing else matters. That is the classic pharisaical attitude: so roundly condemned by our Lord.<br /><br />Lastly, bad liturgy was not "wrought by V2". It had nothing to do with that (V2 called for the retention of Latin), but everything to do with liturgical liberals who hijacked the council and put their own junk into place. The Pauline liturgy is not a bad thing; it's a reformed thing, and if rightly done (this is the problem), every bit as orthodox and reverent as the Old Mass. Thus, I have attended a very traditional, reverent, Novus Ordo Latin Mass at my parish since 1991.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-62580624197762391232014-05-05T08:57:56.878-04:002014-05-05T08:57:56.878-04:00'I'd like to hear from "traditionalis...'I'd like to hear from "traditionalists" who would actually be annoyed (as you surmised) at two of my book titles, and the fact that they didn't deal with their own leading concerns.' Dave Armstrong<br /><br />As a traditionalist, I see your apologetic as irrelevant and, yes, off-putting because you fail to realize that the most serious problem facing the HMC, entailing even the moral issues you address, is the continued abandonment of venerable liturgical rites wrought by V2. If you would like your work to resonate with me, try criticizing the powers that be who trumpet ecumenism while eroding the sense of what it means to be a Roman Catholic, i.e., those who would placate rather than attack our enemies.RFGA, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11981669525574676528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-68806304305546545042014-05-04T17:34:12.878-04:002014-05-04T17:34:12.878-04:00What is it with all these big time apologists and ...What is it with all these big time apologists and their doofus cowboy hats? Do you cowpokes ride mechanical bulls at "Theology on Tap" lovefests?Polk Salad Annienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-51245959523382907162014-05-04T15:52:57.793-04:002014-05-04T15:52:57.793-04:00Mr. Armstrong,
I think "normal" conserv...Mr. Armstrong,<br /><br />I think "normal" conservative and tradition-minded Catholics are both concerned with some of the problems we all see in the Church. I think these concerns may attach to slightly different diagnoses sometimes, even if both are accurate, as far as they go.<br /><br />For example, somebody (let's call him "Joe") concerned with nothing more than the canonical licitness of a liturgical action may concern himself with various liturgical abuses such as departing from the rubric into ad hoc performances. Yet Joe may find altogether unmproblematic some liturgical innovations that, while canonically licit, represent a significant rupture with liturgical tradition as well as carrying questionable theological implications. (Let's call the person concerned with these latter issues "Jim.") [More detailed examples can be found <a href="http://pblosser.blogspot.com/2007/12/for-record.html" rel="nofollow">HERE</a>.]<br /><br />Now Jim is no less concerned with the abuses involving canonical violations of the liturgical rubrics that concern Joe, but these abuses can seem almost beside-the-point in light of the concerns that animate Jim. Thus when Joe expresses satisfaction that some canonical abuses have been corrected by in his parish, Jim's response to his satisfaction may seem less than enthusiastic, and this may strike him as strange and annoying. Why shouldn't he rejoice? But Jim isn't concerned so much with questions like "Is this Mass valid?" or "Is this action canonically illicit?" Rather, his questions run more along the lines of "Is this expression of liturgy authentically Catholic?" or "What does this liturgical action convey theologically?" <br /><br />I think this is an example of the sort of disconnect we get between what I've called (for lack of a better distinction) "normal" conservative Catholics and "tradition-minded" Catholics. <br /><br />As for how this impacts your question about why the latter could find those two book titles of yours annoying, my hunch is that some among them (to put it in extreme terms to make it more obvious) might be inclined to view honing one's skills as an apologist in meeting various Protestant objections as a sort of parlour game being played on the deck of the sinking Titanic.<br /><br />Now we know the Church is not a "Titanic" that's going to sink, and we know that honest answers of the sort you provide to honest questions are invaluable to the quest for truth. But maybe this can help to see how the sides may fall out, when they could really serve the Church much better by cooperating or at least seeing one another as co-belligerents in the same army. Pertinacious Papisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03213911570586726075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-5647841956042545242014-05-04T14:16:36.496-04:002014-05-04T14:16:36.496-04:00Here's my response that I wrote on my Facebook...Here's my response that I wrote on my Facebook page:<br /><br />* * *<br /><br />Dr. Blosser,<br /><br />Thanks so much for stopping by, and for your helpful comment. I understand (now even more so) that you were making generalizations about "traditionalists" and being an observer. Why they think this way (if indeed they do) is what I'm trying to figure out. My comments were, accordingly, not primarily directed at you, but rather, at the phenomenon you describe. But I will change the title and a few lines that implied you were making the charge, rather than observing that others might make it.<br /><br />"All I say as to your two titles is that tradition-minded Catholics are not going to see them as addressing their concerns."<br /><br />Why would that be annoying to them, though? Why would that make anyone be "annoyed" by a book title or its content, simply because it doesn't deal with what they are most concerned about? It'd be like saying, "I love bananas and don't like pears so much. It annoys me that Mr. X over there is eating and (worst of all!) enjoying a pear!" What relation do the two have to each other? None . . . it's like the proverbial apples and oranges.<br /><br />"Both you and so-called 'traditionalists' each have your own proper vocations and spheres of concern. . . . they are not incompatible and each is important."<br /><br />This is exactly my view, too. I'm glad to hear you say this. I am quite happy to let "traditionalists" do what they do (live and let live; I encourage it), as long as it doesn't cross certain lines, which I consider "quasi-schismatic" or bashing the Church (where I myself will start to criticize it as imprudent and slanderous, etc.). Many if not most "traditionalist" concerns, I share myself. I write about liturgical abuse and moral laxity and a host of things that "traditionalists" can and do resonate with. I don't write much about bishops and the "politics" in the Church; never have, for a variety of reasons: the main reason being that it has little or nothing to do with my vocation of apologetics.<br /><br />What I object to is this notion that I must do all this sort of "airing dirty laundry" and sociological / muckraking journalistic-type analysis of Church problems, just because "traditionalists" do. I'm under no such obligation. I have a plate more than full enough, with all the doctrines and dogmas and misunderstandings that apologists routinely deal with. I'm also a big believer in not spreading oneself too thin. As it is, I have more than 2,500 papers, so I've covered quite a few topics; but I can't do *everything.*<br /><br />I'd like to hear from "traditionalists" who would actually be annoyed (as you surmised) at two of my book titles, and the fact that they didn't deal with their own leading concerns.<br /><br />THAT would be a fascinating discussion . . .Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-58718544672127984142014-05-04T07:44:32.148-04:002014-05-04T07:44:32.148-04:00Mr. Armstrong.
I have your Newman book, which I ...Mr. Armstrong. <br /><br />I have your Newman book, which I like very much. Please note that I nowhere suggest that books such as yours should not be written, even the quick reference book for one minute apologists. They're very useful, and I myself find such booklets useful. I position myself in my post simply as an observer with sympathies for both "normal" conservatives and "tradition-minded" Catholics. If anyone calls me a "traditionalist," it is not a self-descriptor. All I say as to your two titles is that tradition-minded Catholics are not going to see them as addressing their concerns. If there is any "critique" of your work in that statement, it is not mine; mine is but a description of how one side might react to the other. Both you and so-called "traditionalists" each have your own proper vocations and spheres of concern. Though there may be little overlaps in terms of specific areas I focus on here, they are not incompatible and each is important. But they are different. That aside, they share massively a common commitment to the Catholic Faith.Pertinacious Papisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03213911570586726075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-56818464989379830082014-05-04T00:59:47.770-04:002014-05-04T00:59:47.770-04:00I know Fr. Robert Barron, and believe me, he is a ...I know Fr. Robert Barron, and believe me, he is a disturbed by rot and idiocy and corruption as anyone is, but in his role as a rector of a major seminary, he obviously feels that the way to address those problems is to work hard to form solid priests. Yes, he may have a certain blind spot regarding the TLM, but given the number of recent events at which Mundelein seminarians have participated in TLMs, and who Fr. Barron is bringing in to teach sacred music, who knows what might happen int he future...<br /><br />And to your basic point. The obvious reason why especially convert apologists set one's traditional teeth on edge is that their style and approach is still fundamentalist and evangelical. They have replaced "sola scriptura" with "sola magisterium" which they interpret as some combination of proof texts and recent pope-of-the-month pronouncements. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-88891618407192908742014-05-04T00:32:29.031-04:002014-05-04T00:32:29.031-04:00I have replied here:
https://www.facebook.com/dav...I have replied here:<br /><br />https://www.facebook.com/dave.armstrong.798/posts/774113712623616?stream_ref=10 <br /><br />My Facebook posts are public; open to all, if someone wants to comment. I have asked my many "traditionalist" friends what they think of your criticisms.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-50797843758679927832014-05-03T23:36:56.724-04:002014-05-03T23:36:56.724-04:00Mark Shea, I'm not sure what point you're ...Mark Shea, I'm not sure what point you're making, though I'm delighted you're "Catholic and Enjoying It."Pertinacious Papisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03213911570586726075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-91025413290352289572014-05-03T21:41:59.797-04:002014-05-03T21:41:59.797-04:00Dark Horae,
Papal blind spot.Dark Horae,<br />Papal blind spot.rubyroadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06680805270107012588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-7233845065636427352014-05-03T20:55:01.697-04:002014-05-03T20:55:01.697-04:00Philip,
I find myself agreeing with nearly every ...Philip,<br /><br />I find myself agreeing with nearly every syllable of what you have written. (That's not completely unknown, of course, but I'm pleased that you've written it, since someone needs to identify properly for both sides in what the disagreement consists.)<br /><br />Dark Horse,<br /><br />If I had to guess, a beef against Voris would revolve around his (reported, but perhaps not true) distaste for the Extraordinary form of the Mass. I don't agree with everything Voris writes/says, but I find it hard to pretend that his criticisms are based in fantasy. <br /><br />A teacher of mine in high school (who died about 18 months ago) used to tell us that the Civil War wasn't just about slavery, but about what slavery was about. Part of what he meant by this was that declaring the war to be about slavery alone was to adopt an insufficient hermeneutic to understand the war and the society which endured it. In the same way, "Conservative" Catholics tend to take a "magical key" approach. In fairness, there are some who call themselves "Traditional" who are anything but .... and these often use the "magical key" themselves.Chrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-44118043679781009782014-05-03T20:13:37.233-04:002014-05-03T20:13:37.233-04:00RR,
What's your beef against Voris?
PBCAEI,
...RR,<br /><br />What's your beef against Voris?<br /><br />PBCAEI,<br /><br />What that's supposed to mean?Dark Horsenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-21730474705532744912014-05-03T19:39:31.014-04:002014-05-03T19:39:31.014-04:00You can be true to the Catholic Church according t...You can be true to the Catholic Church according to its own words, but what fun its that? Paid by Catholics and Enjoying Itnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-50150487369333063582014-05-03T15:50:45.578-04:002014-05-03T15:50:45.578-04:00Which name doesn't belong (Michael Davies ----...Which name doesn't belong (Michael Davies -----de Mattei?)<br />Answer: Michael Voris.rubyroadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06680805270107012588noreply@blogger.com