my article and the unexpected hysteria
  • Chrism
    Posts: 875
    I just read that Dom Guéranger worked on Ineffabile Deus, the Papal document that defined the Immaculate Conception dogmatically. Why hasn't the man yet been canonized?
  • Michael O'Connor
    Posts: 1,637
    Actually one does not have accept that Original Sin was that big of a problem. The Dominican Order in the 16th century argued vehemently against the adoption of the Immaculate Conception doctrine, citing no real support for it in the writings of the Church Fathers or in scripture. I realize that it is now dogma, but the Roman Church was not all unified before the declaration. In fact, Franciscans and Dominicans got into such heated battles that Pope Pius V had to issue a bull restricting promotion of the doctrine and essentially forbidding the two orders from excommunicating each other. The musical results of the IC's advocacy the subsequent restrictions are fascinating.
  • BachLover2BachLover2
    Posts: 330
    @kathy: If I, myself, wanted to be known as an intellectually lazy, cowardly, run-of-the-mill pope-hater, I would falsely accuse the pope of being in favor of molesting boys.
    I would also say things like:
    "Pope Benedict doesn’t have much moral credibility in the eyes of many people."
    "this makes the Pope’s every word about liturgical renewal, in my mind, rather hollow and hypocritical."
  • G
    Posts: 1,401
    I too was startled by the vitriolic irrelevancy of that latest post, BachLover2
    I don't know that I should ever read that forum again, much less try to post.



    (Save the Liturgy, Save the World)
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,229
    If the editors of Pray Tell don't let readers respond with disagreement or critical analysis of the writings there, I wouldn't waste any time trying to write there, except to post a link to my own blog after putting my thoughts up there. If they would really edit another person's writing without disclosing the fact, that is not doing full service to truth.
  • IanWIanW
    Posts: 765
    There should be room for both partisan sites and those where the parties come together: the former as places that offer an opportunity for those of a similar mind to exchange information and develop ideas and practice; the latter by encouraging informed debate, celebrating what we have in common and exposing us to ideas that help us test and refine our own.

    The party sites need to avoid partisan narrowness: they benefit from being places where neighbours and those passing through feel comfortable asking questions, providing information and generally broadening horizons. The sites with ambitions to go beyond party must avoid Whiggery (the unreflective arrogance of dogmatic relativism) like the plague. They benefit from honest recognition of difference, and an editorial commitment to even-handedness and mutual respect, without which they will become party sites, yet lacking the benefit of recognising it. Of course, it goes without saying that use of the delete key to remove uncongenial criticism will diminish both.

    BTW, Jeffrey, I particularly like the two analogies and their follow-up in your second article.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,516
    Ian: I agree with you.

    BachLover2: Fr. Ruff has a doctorate in chant and has been organizing a summer chant camp for high schoolers for a dozen years. He has led the way in organizing chant sections for the mainstream summer music conventions. How many of us can claim to have made that kind of contribution to the liturgical renewal envisioned by Pope Benedict XVI?
  • IanWIanW
    Posts: 765
    Kathy,

    I think, though, that Fr. Ruff has let himself down badly with the undisguised glee he has shown in using the unfounded accusations against His Holiness as a stick with which to beat his liturgical reforms.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    What a shame!! This is exactly what the devil wants us to do. It seems he attacks 'big guys' real hard using their own intellect and all the good work they did. I hope he turns around. I'll pray for him.
  • Chrism
    Posts: 875
    partisan sites and those where the parties come together

    Either categorization would be a dumbing down of the CMAA.

    liberal or conservative

    And again.

    The attacks on Jeffrey will have apparently worked, if he and this site end up boxed into such corners. Shame on us if we respond as the enemy intended, rather than as Catholics ought.
  • IanWIanW
    Posts: 765
    Chrism,

    I agree that labels and generalisations can be limiting, but they are necessary tools of analysis and discourse, useful up to the point where they stop us from thinking.
  • Chrism
    Posts: 875
    None of those labels is appropriate for the Church and such labels have been used by her enemies since before her birth.

    I reject those labels utterly as agents of Satan.
  • IanWIanW
    Posts: 765
    Chrism,

    They are, though, useful tools in analysing and discussing views and assumptions, so long as their purpose and limits are understood. The misuse of a hammer doesn't make it an evil thing ...
  • Chrism
    Posts: 875
    I'm sorry if I misled you, Ian. They are useful words in describing situations.

    They are simply inaccurate in describing the Catholic Church or the CMAA, and to apply them here would be a grave and damaging misuse of the words.
  • BachLover2BachLover2
    Posts: 330
    the only reason i brought it up at all: the dichotomy is interesting, is it not? fr. ruff demands that pope benedict instantly respond to every nasty, false accusation of the new york times crowd or he's "lost all credibility." yet, fr. ruff himself will not respond to people who challenge his scholarship on his blog. as a matter of fact, he won't even let folks voice differing opinions. hypocrite?

    his rantings against pope benedict are equivalent to the indignation of a five-year-old who challenges einstein to a debate on nuclear physics. when einstein does not respond to the request, the five-year-old gets indignant and says, "einstein has lost all credibility. he will not have a debate with me about nuclear physics." in reality, einstein is not obliged to respond to the five-year-old.

    as fr. ruff knows perfectly well, there are proper channels that one can get through to go answers if one really cares. pope benedict would demean himself if he responded to every false accusation made against him. besides, he's too busy for that nonsense.
  • JamJam
    Posts: 636
    ...
  • marajoymarajoy
    Posts: 783
    @BachLover
    fr. ruff is an intellectually lazy, cowardly, run-of-the-mill pope-hater. nuff said.


    EXCUSE ME?! That is pure slander and should NOT be posted on a public forum. Quoting people is one thing, but calling names is quite another...

    Can a moderator please remove that comment (and this one, too, once it will no longer be necessary.)
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    (comment deleted)
  • BachLover2BachLover2
    Posts: 330
    @marajoy: comment has been fixed. forgive me: i get testy when people start accusing the pope of things.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,516
    Hmm. I'm not sure that's very fixed.
Add a Comment