tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post8747884244108018466..comments2024-03-22T18:43:00.710-04:00Comments on Unam Sanctam Catholicam: Doctrinal MinimalismBonifacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-15987210340647694572009-11-18T08:08:40.530-05:002009-11-18T08:08:40.530-05:00Akcuin-
I will answer that in a future post.
Ale...Akcuin-<br /><br />I will answer that in a future post.<br /><br />Alexander-<br /><br /><i>However I have seen Trads be nasty because they simply cannot handle what is going on in the Church; the stress of the matter crushes them.</i><br /><br />I think this is an essential point. Many Trads who are of a more ill-tempered disposition seem to be this way because it is how they respond to what is going on-the stress crushes them. <br /><br />I had an insight into this some months ago when reading a lot of comments by sedevacantists and realized that it was essentially a theology of despair - which is why I resolved some time ago to avoid critiquing anyone or pointing fingers for quite awhile. While the problems in the Church are real and demand real action to remedy, we have to remember the virtue of hope and trust that Christ is guiding the Church. If we focus too excessively on the negatives, we will find ourselves crushed and will act out by either becoming bad tempered (more likely) or possibly, in a extreme case, going sede.<br /><br />BlessingsBonifacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-73743720210299281812009-11-18T04:08:48.775-05:002009-11-18T04:08:48.775-05:00Dave wrote:
After all, I vigorously defend things...Dave wrote:<br /><br /><i>After all, I vigorously defend things like, e.g., Mary Mediatrix, which is not yet a dogma at the highest level, yet very firmly in Catholic Tradition. I advocated the wider availability of the TLM long before the recent decree. I defend various traditional liturgical practices such as, for example, receiving the Holy Eucharist from the priest alone (as I do), as a matter of personal preference, rather than from eucharistic ministers.<br /><br />So you and I (i.e., the person who critiqued your earlier post) are not of all that different opinions on this.</i><br /><br />This is what I figured were true about you and the “EWTN crowd” (for lack of a better description).<br /><br />There is no reason for any Catholic to not want to see a wider use of the TLM or to use Traditional forms instead of novelty.<br /><br />So you and Mr. Campbell (and myself) are truly not that far off. The differences lie deeper. For example, we would all love to see a wider use of the TLM but I would like to see its eventual dominance and then sole use in the Roman Rite. We would all agree that a Novus Ordo can be offered with solemnity, reverence and be perfectly valid but I would argue that it is, even done in that way, still inferior to a TLM. Also I wouldn’t suggest that receiving from the priest alone is simply a personal preference but has theological meaning as well as deeper reverence attached to it.Alexanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08998296715568420559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-5148566981704801522009-11-18T03:22:19.778-05:002009-11-18T03:22:19.778-05:00but in part that is what "traditionalists&quo...<i>but in part that is what "traditionalists" do, that I object to: it is the excessive criticism of fellow Catholics: often to an extreme and uncharitable degree.</i><br /><br />This runs both ways. Except that the extreme so-called Trads have a louder voice for some reason. For example, I have always been charitable in dialog with Catholics who disagree with me about the problems with Vatican II or how the New Mass is not as good (prayers, ritual, etc.) as the TLM – some are fine and some are nasty about it.<br /><br />I have seen Trads purposely be nasty because it makes them feel better or they get a kick out of it. However I have seen Trads be nasty because they simply cannot handle what is going on in the Church; the stress of the matter crushes them.Alexanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08998296715568420559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-35786476041368296302009-11-17T19:36:04.237-05:002009-11-17T19:36:04.237-05:00I don't think you necessarily need Tradition t...I don't think you necessarily need Tradition to help "spread the faith". Of course, this depends on who your target audience is. If you're talking to a group of educated agnostics, you might want to know your St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Justin Martyr. If you're talking to the general layperson, I think the CCC is sufficient in teaching the fundamentals of understanding the faith, because it is comprehensive, albeit rudimentary at parts. <br /><br />I think Tradition comes in to enrich the existing faith and to deepen the faithful's understanding and appreciation of our Church, but not a necessary utility in spreading the faith for the most part.rklnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-625438421599486882009-11-17T11:20:59.165-05:002009-11-17T11:20:59.165-05:00I have a very practical concern:
How much Traditi...I have a very practical concern:<br /><br />How much Tradition do you have to know before you can help spread the faith?<br /><br />Here's answers that I can think of and problems with them:<br /><br />1) "very little, just trust in God"<br />In some ways this is a great answer. People are impressed by sincerity. However, if a person pursuing this approach is asked a hard question, then the best answer they can give is "I don't know". Usually people won't say, "I don't know" and instead will make something up that sounds good...<br /><br />Suppose you don't know, but just trust the priest. This is fine unless priest is questionable. There's limits to how much you can trust even an imprimatur.<br /><br />2) "Know as much Tradition as possible"<br />This answer is wonderful because it means that you will know not only the correct answers but also good methods for arriving at more correct answers. However, this takes a long time. It would take more than all of my life to make an exhaustive study of just the Bible and the CCC...<br /><br />---<br /><br />Perhaps the only solution lies in a community of believers.<br /><br />Do you have any insights?Sam Danzigerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16927282324472720929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-24148898278020910802009-11-16T21:31:31.597-05:002009-11-16T21:31:31.597-05:00Dunno if my two-part comment posted. If not, I hav...Dunno if my two-part comment posted. If not, I have cross-posted it on my blog.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-2010329098897740202009-11-16T20:05:31.626-05:002009-11-16T20:05:31.626-05:00[cont.]
So certainly you and I or "tradition...[cont.]<br /><br />So certainly you and I or "traditionalists" can't "require more than what Holy Mother Church requires. We can't look down on those who may be at a more elementary state in their walk with God or who may think certain non-optional aspects of Catholic piety are not for them. People grow and advance.<br /><br />It seems like that is what you were doing in your original post; going after converts in particular and making out that they were "less Catholic" than they should be, and leading others down the same "bare minimum" path. But you didn't document (if I recall correctly) even a single instance with facts, which is what I objected to and why I fired several socratic questions back.<br /><br />Why you felt that it was good to even go after the converts in the first place is a mystery to me, but in part that is what "traditionalists" do, that I object to: it is the excessive criticism of fellow Catholics: often to an extreme and uncharitable degree.<br /><br />That has never sat well with me. I'm talking generally now; not about you. You responded very humbly and graciously to my critique. I'm just giving some of my own general opinions about what "traditionalists" so often do: the never-ending strong criticisms of fellow Catholics. Many have observed that this strong tendency is a sin against charity.<br /><br />I think when we examine the issues brought up in "traditionalist" circles with more specificity (which is what I tried to do), then we often see that it isn't as bad as the critic may have thought (exaggerations have been made) or that the criticisms are off the mark and altogether unfair.<br /><br />But again, if all you are saying now is that there are good practices and beliefs in Catholicism that aren't technically required, and that observing and believing these is praiseworthy and pious, then of course I agree. I even do a few of them myself!<br /><br />After all, I vigorously defend things like, e.g., Mary Mediatrix, which is not yet a dogma at the highest level, yet very firmly in Catholic Tradition. I advocated the wider availability of the TLM long before the recent decree. I defend various traditional liturgical practices such as, for example, receiving the Holy Eucharist from the priest alone (as I do), as a matter of personal preference, rather than from eucharistic ministers.<br /><br />So you and I (i.e., the person who critiqued your earlier post) are not of all that different opinions on this. <br /><br />This will be cross-posted on my blog, with a few additional links incorporated.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-49123242352929101712009-11-16T20:05:10.263-05:002009-11-16T20:05:10.263-05:00Greetings.
I don't really disagree with what ...Greetings.<br /><br />I don't really disagree with what you say here. When I questioned you about it before, I was asking mostly rhetorical, socratic-type questions. You made the claim about a certain class of folks in the Church, and I was challenging you to flesh it out.<br /><br />Now you have done so, as to what you mean by "minimalism" -- and I have no problem with what you say. <br /><br />But -- that said -- you still haven't documented how converts and apologists (or whoever you were critiquing) advocate "minimalism". You know what parish I attend and how traditional it is, so I think you know where I personally stand, and I am in those categories of convert and apologist and part of the "EWTN-loving" crowd or what-not. <br /><br />I'm officially called a "Neo-Catholic" in the article on same in Wikipedia (while the same article ludicrously cites my own reasoning directly against what it says is the "neo-Catholic' position). So I am and I ain't at the same time over there. I always seem to be divided into two mutually exclusive people when "traditionalists" critique me. LOL<br /><br />Beyond that, I would just note the distinction between what a Catholic must believe and what is not binding but good and pious and spiritually beneficial for a Catholic to believe.<br /><br />The latter category is great, if the beliefs are widely held or devotions widely practiced (e.g., the apparitions at Fatima that I personally love). If you say that the latter makes for being a good or better Catholic, I heartily agree with you. <br /><br />On the other hand, I don't see the point of denigrating Catholics whose piety may not incorporate all or even many of these elements.<br />We can extoll the counsels of perfection or the evangelical counsels, <br /><br />http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04435a.htm<br /><br />but at the same time it is obvious (by definition) that not all are called to that. And to make out almost as if they are, is (sorry) closet Protestantism. Indeed, many laypeople are limited by things like marriage. <br /><br />I used to, for example, be in Operation Rescue. I got arrested more than once trying to save babies' lives at abortion clinics. Not everyone has to or even can do that. I was married but didn't yet have children. Later, when I met Fr. John Hardon and became a Catholic and a father, he personally recommended that I should no longer do the rescues, because of the further responsibility of having children. In other words, there are different states of life.<br />This is the wisdom of the celibate priesthood: allowing greater service.<br /><br />If the Church in her wisdom had thought all these things should be required for all, then she would have declared so. But if they are not, then they aren't required. They are good, but not required.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-42108743367158117672009-11-16T18:27:10.106-05:002009-11-16T18:27:10.106-05:00A quick search turned up the phrase doctrinal mini...A quick search turned up the phrase doctrinal minimalism in a blog written in 2006. I didn't go any further than that to see if the phrase was used prior to that. Here's the link:<br /><br />http://johnwmorehead.blogspot.com/2006/02/correct-knowledge-and-doctrinal.html<br /><br />Not that it matters, I'm always wondering if anybody can ever have a completely un-thought-up phrase with well over 6 billion people in the world. Hey, maybe I just made up the phrase un-thought-up. Hang on, I'm going to google it :)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17123213011002107442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-72156679150539198332009-11-16T00:52:00.812-05:002009-11-16T00:52:00.812-05:00I once read an article by this Orthodox who argued...I once read an article by this Orthodox who argued that many Protestants want a mere Christianity (a la Lewis) whereas Orthodox (and we would say Catholics) want "more Chrisitanity". This point is related to ecumenism--many Protestants want us to say "let's accept the Trinity, the Atonement, the Incarnation, baptism, and that's it. That's Christianity." The Catholic would say "yes, good start; but then the 7 Sacraments, the Immaculate Conception, the Papacy, the coredemption; the whole package comes from God". <br /><br />By the way you wrote: "I am denigrating the CCC by any means". I suspect you meant I am NOT denigrating... (lol)<br /><br />Ben.Bennoreply@blogger.com