Fr. Ripperger: NeoCatholicism vs. Traditionalism

[Nihil Obstat]

Interesting article; but regardless both the Second Vatican Council and all the Liturgical reforms are binding on us Catholics.  Even if ones preference is the EF Mass, the OF Mass is still the Church's normal expression of her  lex orandi lex credendi. 

 

 

Pax

Totally irrelevant, really, given the point of the article. 

[Aragon]

I'd say the whole going-to-church-with-your-jeans-on-'cause-Jesus-loves-you-anyway is problematic, to say the least. It breathes sola fide: the idea that we are saved through grace alone and that good works (i.e. putting on your best clothes) do not count. 

God does care about the way you dress, speak, and behave in church. I don't have to elaborate on St. Paul's instructions on the Eucharist, and would like to point at the many instances in the Old Testament where God names irreverent practices at the altar as one of the worst crimes of Israel. And this was in the time God was not physically present at the altar. How greater is His right to our reverence when He is truly present at the altar in His Flesh and Blood!

Aside from this fact, it seems to me self-evident that true love wants to show itself in good works. If we dress up for a night out with our partner, we should also dress up for Our Lord. 

Lecrae is amesome, and if you think that dressing up for Church counts as "good works" then you need to re-raed Matthew 25:31-46.

Edited August 2, 2015 by Aragon

[CountrySteve937]

Totally irrelevant, really, given the point of the article. 

 

Well Liturgy was discussed in the first paragraph so not totally irrelevant.

 

"n 1996, a group of friends had lunch in Rome at the Czechoslovakian college. One of the priests who offers Mass according to the new rite was a bit dumbfounded. He had written an article in which he had discussed certain aspects of the liturgical reform. His puzzlement came from the fact that traditionalists had attacked his article and he could not understand why. A traditionalist seminarian said to the priest, “We agree that something has to be done about the liturgy, but we do not agree on what should be done.” Traditionalists and neoconservatives often find each other mystifying, and the reason for this has to do with the relationship each position holds with respect to ecclesiastical tradition.

[dominicansoul]

the word “protties” doesn't rub me the right way…  but more to the point I want to clarify something you wrote about rejecting the Eucharist… you can only reject something that you know, and in so far that they do not know who or what the Eucharist is truly about, because of no fault of their own, they are not rejecting the Eucharist

 

the fundies, protties and non denoms know Scripture like the back of their hands.  They are fully aware of the words Jesus spoke of His Flesh and His Blood.   So I do believe they will be held culpable.  Of course that's up to God, and I'm merely sharing my opinion.  As for those I work with,  They've worked with me very closely for the last 8 years.  So they know about the Holy Eucharist and they don't believe it.  They insist I have no true relationship with Christ and all I do is in vain.  So pray for them.  I sure do.

[Nihil Obstat]

Well Liturgy was discussed in the first paragraph so not totally irrelevant.

 

"n 1996, a group of friends had lunch in Rome at the Czechoslovakian college. One of the priests who offers Mass according to the new rite was a bit dumbfounded. He had written an article in which he had discussed certain aspects of the liturgical reform. His puzzlement came from the fact that traditionalists had attacked his article and he could not understand why. A traditionalist seminarian said to the priest, “We agree that something has to be done about the liturgy, but we do not agree on what should be done.” Traditionalists and neoconservatives often find each other mystifying, and the reason for this has to do with the relationship each position holds with respect to ecclesiastical tradition.

Sure, but the OF/EF distinction is really just an accident in a philosophical sense. Does not affect any of the points that were made. Rather it is just the current state of affairs. There is no purpose in re-asserting the legal status of the Roman Rite, because it does not make any philosophical point.

[Seven77]

the fundies, protties and non denoms know Scripture like the back of their hands.  They are fully aware of the words Jesus spoke of His Flesh and His Blood.   So I do believe they will be held culpable.  Of course that's up to God, and I'm merely sharing my opinion.  As for those I work with,  They've worked with me very closely for the last 8 years.  So they know about the Holy Eucharist and they don't believe it.  They insist I have no true relationship with Christ and all I do is in vain.  So pray for them.  I sure do.

 it is not very nice to refer to people as undies, potties, and numb demons.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

oh alleluia. back to the O.P, lol. Haven't read the whole thing yet, will do that immediately.

what the crunk, i just saw a post that wasn't there, somehow i ended up on a middle page instead of the last page when i opened up the thread lol, but anyway i'm going to read the whole thing anways and give more input on the o.p.p (original posters post.)

[Seven77]

 So pray for them.  I sure do.

while you're at it pray for me, and ask your coworkers to pray for me as well…

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Rationalism also changed how man viewed revelation. Since rationalists do not believe that one can come to true intellectual knowledge by means of the senses, then that which pertained to the senses was systematically ignored or rejected. Since revelation is something introduced into sensible reality, revelation came under direct attack. Moreover, if one is cut off from reality, then one is locked up inside himself and thus what pertains to one’s own experience becomes paramount. After Descartes came Spinoza, who systematically attacked the authenticity of oral tradition regarding the Scriptures,4 and through his philosophy he began to change people’s view of the world. As empiricism rose, the view of man as simply a material being led to fixing man’s meaning in the “now” or always in the present. Since for the empiricist man’s meaning is found in what he senses and feels, this development led eventually to a lack of interest in the past since the past as such (and the future for that matter) can neither be sensed nor fulfill our sensible desires. With the advent of Hegel, who held that there was only one existing thing in a constant state of flux, the intellectual groundwork was laid for a wholesale lack of interest in and distrust of tradition. The coupling of the Hegelian dialectic with the skepticism of Spinoza regarding the sources of Scripture, the past (including all forms of tradition) came to be considered outmoded or outdated and tradition distrusted. As a consequence, those who wanted to impose some religious teaching based upon tradition or history became suspect.

 

I disagree with this in the O.P. because i truly believe you can live in the day for the most while still having the utmost respect for sacred tradition whether ecclesiastical tradition or the other one and a great respect for the future. Living in the past or the future to much can be a bad thing and diconnect one from the realities of the present.

[Nihil Obstat]

 

I disagree with this in the O.P. because i truly believe you can live in the day for the most while still having the utmost respect for sacred tradition whether ecclesiastical tradition or the other one and a great respect for the future. Living in the past or the future to much can be a bad thing and diconnect one from the realities of the present.

I do not really think you understood what Fr. Ripperger was saying then. 

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

For Blondel, only those things that come from man himself and which are immanent to him have any meaning. No tradition or history has any bearing upon his intellectual considerations unless it comes somehow from himself.

 

I think this guy was wrong to reject sacred tradition and the lessons of the past but also agree that things can be divinely revealed in the present that have not yet been revealed by the past.

I do not really think you understood what Fr. Ripperger was saying then. 

 

I understand what i understand and it isnt particular that it has to be the way you understand.  Plus i am yet to finnish reading the whole thing, i am giving a running commentary.

In summary: Blondel and others, under the influence of modern philosophy, thought that modern man could not be satisfied with past ways of thinking. They provided an intellectual foundation upon which the Church

 

In a sense i kind of agree, of course without rejecting past revelation we must deepen in our understanding of the truth, although the truth remains the same and all documents availed by the universal magesterium of the past are still infallible.

Edited August 2, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Nihil Obstat]

 

I think this guy was wrong to reject sacred tradition and the lessons of the past but also agree that things can be divinely revealed in the present that have not yet been revealed by the past.

Christian Revelation is categorically different because it is closed - this must be believed with divine faith - and as such it is utterly impossible to add something to the Deposit of Revelation. Thus it is possible only for a deepening in understanding of what has already been revealed, for instance the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Not a new belief, God forbid, only more explicitly defined and more authoritatively required. 

[Catlick]

Lecrae is amesome, and if you think that dressing up for Church counts as "good works" then you need to re-raed Matthew 25:31-46.

Yeah, because 'I needed clothes and you clothed me' etc. totally excludes dressing up well for Holy Mass as a good work. 

[dominicansoul]

while you're at it pray for me, and ask your coworkers to pray for me as well…

ill ask them to pray a rosary for you...oh wait... 

 

(ive been praying for you since i read ur prayer request in the prayer board)

 

 

 

[Guest]

I'm not trying to paint you as a lukewarm Catholic. It sounds like you're doing the basic things all Catholics should do, and that's good. But recognize that it's the bare minimum (although certainly praying a daily rosary is supererogatory), and that you're engaging in here with some Catholics who are very learned in the Faith (not me!), and they are identifying some non-Catholic ideas in your posts. One of the most basic ways of living humility is to recognize and acknowledge when others know more than you, and to listen to them. Instead you're getting defensive and declaring everything a matter of opinion and bias. You could learn a lot here, Josh—and yes, be a better, more learned, Catholic!—if you would just humbly admit that maybe you don't know as much about the Faith as some others.

I'm not saying this to show myself superior to you in any way, or to publicly embarrass you. I don't know much about the Faith myself, and I'm constantly learning from other Phatmassers. I very much doubt that I'm more humble than you, either, because I don't think there are more than 100 people on the entire planet who are more arrogant than me. What are the chances you're one of them? Not good.

So if you wish to continue defending yourself publicly, I totally understand, cuz it's perfectly understandable to feel attacked in a situation like this. But privately, I hope that you will take some of what has been said to heart, start studying more, and maybe slowly change your music-listening habits.

Also, if you want us to pray for your job situation, please say so!

God bless Gabreila. I hope you're well. I've learned a lot since I've came to Phatmass and I have no problem with continuing to learn more. Its why i come here. Although if you're insinuating that a person like Catlick is someone I should be learning from no thanks. People like him do a great disservice to the Catholic faith and push people away from it. I'm doing the "bare minimum"? Okay if you say so I don't even really disagree. Thankfully at the end of the day I'm saved by grace through faith not by works unless I would be tempted to boast on how much I'm doing to earn God's approval. What exactly do you suggest that I be doing ? Going to a Latin Mass? Watching Voris Church Militant videos and reading material from his website?  Or giving more to the poor and helping those in need? If you say the latter I totally agree. As far as changing what music I listen to why would I do that? Do you have a problem with hip hop? You realize most of these hip hop artist are black and grew up in the ghetto and in poverty? They have been underprivileged their whole lives and they are using their God given gift. Why would I stop listening to Lecrae? Are you familiar with his music? Give me some things you find troubling about it. If you're not familiar with it then I think you should familiarize yourself with it before you tell me I shouldn't listen to it and that it's harming my faith. The first video I posted titled Church Clothes is talking about the hypocrisy of someone who dresses really nice for Church yet would judge someone who they deem to be under dressed. Also it deals with the self righteous holier then thou attitude of a lot of Christians. I've been lucky to never experience being judged (that I was made aware of) in real life as a Catholic for how I dressed. I've always found Mass to be very welcoming and come as you are is practiced and put into practice by people at Mass. I've always counted this as one of the good things of being Catholic. I get that you should look nice and put together when you go to Mass. But how you're dressed doesn't equate to how much you love God or how good of a job you're doing. It's your heart and only God can read it and know if you're doing things right or failing miserably. Luckily I'm wise and humble enough to know when God looks at me He instantly judges me as failing miserably. Me being dressed to the nines doesn't change that. Thank God for Confession and His Mercy. If everything fell on me and how good I do things I wouldn't have a chance. Luckily that's not how it works. Take care.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Guest

[Guest]

[Gabriela]

What exactly do you suggest that I be doing ? Going to a Latin Mass? Watching Voris Church Militant videos and reading material from his website?  Or giving more to the poor and helping those in need? If you say the latter I totally agree.

Why would you think I'd suggest going to a Latin Mass or watching Voris? Yes, you should do more to help the poor and those in need. We all should. But I think my previous post made clear that by "doing more" I meant "doing study". You immediately dismissed the link I posted to FOCUS because "you know a lot about the Church already". But we could all learn more, and as I said, some of the more learned posters feel you need to in order to ensure that your beliefs are in alignment with the Church's. FOCUS talks are a really easy way to learn more. 

As far as changing what music I listen to why would I do that? Do you have a problem with hip hop? You realize most of these hip hop artist are black and grew up in the ghetto and in poverty? They have been underprivileged their whole lives and they are using their God given gift. Why would I stop listening to Lecrae? Are you familiar with his music? Give me some things you find troubling about it. If you're not familiar with it then I think you should familiarize yourself with it before you tell me I shouldn't listen to it and that it's harming my faith.

I said: 

Protestant hip hop may be slowly influencing your opinions on the Faith.
St. Augustine said, "He who sings, prays twice." And "lex orandi, lex credendi"—"the law of prayer is the law of belief". 
And that is not to speak of the mountain of research that's shown that the messages we consume via mass media affect our beliefs.

That's what I meant. The fact that people are black, from the ghetto, and poor doesn't automatically make their music theologically sound.

And yes, I do listen to hiphop. I'm quite a fan. You know there's plenty of Catholic hiphop out there to listen to? I'm sure you do. I didn't suggest you stop listening to Lecrae or other non-Catholic hiphop entirely, only that you become aware of how such music may influence your beliefs without your realizing it, and that you study more about Catholicism to ensure that doesn't happen.

 

The first video I posted titled Church Clothes is talking about the hypocrisy of someone who dresses really nice for Church yet would judge someone who they deem to be under dressed. Also it deals with the self righteous holier then thou attitude of a lot of Christians. I've been lucky to never experience being judged (that I was made aware of) in real life as a Catholic for how I dressed. I've always found Mass to be very welcoming and come as you are is practiced and put into practice by people at Mass. I've always counted this as one of the good things of being Catholic. I get that you should look nice and put together when you go to Mass. But how you're dressed doesn't equate to how much you love God or how good of a job you're doing. It's your heart and only God can read it and know if you're doing things right or failing miserably. Luckily I'm wise and humble enough to know when God looks at me He instantly judges me as failing miserably. Me being dressed to the nines doesn't change that. Thank God for Confession and His Mercy. If everything fell on me and how good I do things I wouldn't have a chance. Luckily that's not how it works. Take care.

You may benefit from this, posted in the "Effeminacy" thread:

St. Thomas also speaks on modesty concerning the outward movements of the body.  Here, he quotes Saint Ambrose in stating that, “Beauty of conduct consists in becoming
behavior towards others, according to their sex and person.”  Thomas states that, “Outward movements are a sign of the inward disposition” and quotes Ecclesiastics 19:29-30, “You can tell a person by his appearance … the way a person dresses, the way he laughs, the way he walks, tell you what he is.”  St. Ambrose adds that, “The habit of mind is seen in the gesture of the body,” and that “the body’s movement is an index of the soul.”  Ambrose goes on to say, “Let nature guide the movement: if nature fail in any respect, surely effort will supply the defect.” 

No, you cannot immediately know a person's inward disposition simply by observing how they are dressed one Sunday at Mass. And dressing well for Mass does not necessarily mean a person is well disposed toward God inwardly. But someone who consistently comes to Mass in the same clothes s/he wears to the gym or the Farmer's Market is probably not thinking about how every single thing s/he does—including dress—should honor God. And that does tell you something about a person's inward disposition.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Gabriela

[Guest]

Good post. Will check out that link. Thank you.

[Catlick]

Back before the Second Vatican Council, civility was highly regarded in civil society. You would certainly not wear t-shirts with annoying texts; men didn't even wear t-shirts, underclass men generally wearing a tie outside work. The general attitude was that you shouldn't invade the world of other people with your personal preferences. Watch series like Downton Abbey and you'll see that people went great ways to prevent annoying, embarassing etc. other people in public. This was charity applied to public life, and thus part of Christian civilization. 

Also people didn't yet believe that 'being myself' is The Most Important Thing in the World. At work they were primarily employees, at home primarily fathers/mothers, in Church primarily sons/daughters of God. They represented something greater than themselves, and dressed to that. This was humility applied to public life, and thus also part of Christian civilization. 

I think the whole 'I wear what I like because God loves me anyway' is wrong not only because it supposes God is a cosmic social worker, but also because it ignores the social aspect of clothes and does not inspire to civility, charity, and humility. 

 

 

[Guest]

Ahhh Civil society how I wish we could go back. Back when blacks couldn't vote or drink from the same water fountain. Those  were the days.