Comments on: Tres Viae http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2324 A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog Sun, 23 Nov 2008 16:03:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: Brennan http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2324#comment-14260 Brennan Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:59:13 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2324#comment-14260 Enjoyed this post. Peter Kreeft has an interesting article along quite similar lines here: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9611/opinion/kreeft.html It's a good read. I also agree that a Traditionalist will butt heads with a conservative quicker than a liberal. At least liberals understand the importance of art, liturgy, and architecture, even if I completely disagree with their goals and what ends up happening to all three when they try to implement those goals. Conservatives seem to be fine with whatever comes down the pike from the Vatican (or the local Bishop) as long as it is official. Thus they may decry abuses in the new liturgy, but you won't hear them decrying the actual reform itself, as traditionalists will. One example of the flexibiity of conservatives' architectural sensibilities is the article Our Sunday Visitor ran on the new Los Angeles Cathedral about a year ago. The article simply discussed the cathedral as if it was right in line with other great Cathedrals like Lourdes or Chartres. Which I found rather unbelievable, to say the least.
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9611/opinion/kreeft.html

It's a good read.

I also agree that a Traditionalist will butt heads with a conservative quicker than a liberal. At least liberals understand the importance of art, liturgy, and architecture, even if I completely disagree with their goals and what ends up happening to all three when they try to implement those goals.

Conservatives seem to be fine with whatever comes down the pike from the Vatican (or the local Bishop) as long as it is official. Thus they may decry abuses in the new liturgy, but you won't hear them decrying the actual reform itself, as traditionalists will. One example of the flexibiity of conservatives' architectural sensibilities is the article Our Sunday Visitor ran on the new Los Angeles Cathedral about a year ago. The article simply discussed the cathedral as if it was right in line with other great Cathedrals like Lourdes or Chartres. Which I found rather unbelievable, to say the least.]]> By: Anthrakeus http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2324#comment-11131 Anthrakeus Thu, 08 Jun 2006 06:08:47 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2324#comment-11131 <blockquote> Instead of leaving everyone to their own devices (see/hear no evil) or whining that bishops do too little, the orthodox faithful should seek to be evangelists within the Church.</blockquote> I agree whole-heartedly. Many traditionalists get impatient and decide to just leave (jump ship to the Society and whatnot). This is the sort of thing that Luther and the like did. It is only staying within the Church that one can get anything accomplished. Oddly enough, we see even less lay involvement in the debates within the Church today than 50 years ago. What debate there is usually focuses on things no one is at liberty to change (abortion, gay marriage, women clergy, etc.) Most good Catholics seem to have fallen into the opinion that only bad Catholics disagree with a bishop. The pointy hat doesn't come with infalliblity (the tiara only comes with limited error insurance). Christ's faithful are at liberty to make known their needs, especially their spiritual needs, and their wishes to the Pastors of the Church. Canon 212 §2 Instead of leaving everyone to their own devices (see/hear no evil) or whining that bishops do too little, the orthodox faithful should seek to be evangelists within the Church.

I agree whole-heartedly. Many traditionalists get impatient and decide to just leave (jump ship to the Society and whatnot). This is the sort of thing that Luther and the like did. It is only staying within the Church that one can get anything accomplished.

Oddly enough, we see even less lay involvement in the debates within the Church today than 50 years ago. What debate there is usually focuses on things no one is at liberty to change (abortion, gay marriage, women clergy, etc.) Most good Catholics seem to have fallen into the opinion that only bad Catholics disagree with a bishop. The pointy hat doesn't come with infalliblity (the tiara only comes with limited error insurance).

Christ's faithful are at liberty to make known their needs, especially their spiritual needs, and their wishes to the Pastors of the Church. Canon 212 §2]]> By: Funky Dung http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2324#comment-11049 Funky Dung Tue, 06 Jun 2006 21:24:41 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2324#comment-11049 <blockquote>"Okay, is the Archbishop of Canterbury in the habit of cracking down in the Anglican Church? Are there Anglicans waiting in anxious hope for him to do so?"</blockquote> Well, I'm not sure they're hoping for Canterbury to smack anyone down, but I think the orthodox few who oppose gay bishops and similar nonsense might wish *someone* would do *something* to stop the madness. <blockquote>"Perpetual malcontents on the conservative/traditionalist side in the Catholic Church may be deficient in their trust of the hierarchy not letting things 'go to the dogs,' but I still don't see that they have that much in common with Anglicans — ecclesiologically or otherwise."</blockquote> I think few Anglicans expect the hierarchy to do much of anything useful. Most high church types seem to chose to see and hear no evil. I think Steve was implying (and he should correct me if I'm wrong) that to bank on the hierarchy to act against troublemakers and heretics is to have an impoverished sense of ecclesiology. Instead of leaving everyone to their own devices (see/hear no evil) or whining that bishops do too little, the orthodox faithful should seek to be evangelists within the Church. The episcopacy has a legitimate place in Christ's Church and I'm not advocating rebellion among the laity, but individual Church members, have a duty to do more than point out problems; they are to be part of the solution. Then again, perhaps Steve was just trying to point out the indefectability of the Church. Acting like Chicken Little about the Church's woes would seem to indicate a lack of faith in that. "Okay, is the Archbishop of Canterbury in the habit of cracking down in the Anglican Church? Are there Anglicans waiting in anxious hope for him to do so?"

Well, I'm not sure they're hoping for Canterbury to smack anyone down, but I think the orthodox few who oppose gay bishops and similar nonsense might wish *someone* would do *something* to stop the madness.

"Perpetual malcontents on the conservative/traditionalist side in the Catholic Church may be deficient in their trust of the hierarchy not letting things 'go to the dogs,' but I still don't see that they have that much in common with Anglicans — ecclesiologically or otherwise."


I think few Anglicans expect the hierarchy to do much of anything useful. Most high church types seem to chose to see and hear no evil. I think Steve was implying (and he should correct me if I'm wrong) that to bank on the hierarchy to act against troublemakers and heretics is to have an impoverished sense of ecclesiology. Instead of leaving everyone to their own devices (see/hear no evil) or whining that bishops do too little, the orthodox faithful should seek to be evangelists within the Church. The episcopacy has a legitimate place in Christ's Church and I'm not advocating rebellion among the laity, but individual Church members, have a duty to do more than point out problems; they are to be part of the solution.

Then again, perhaps Steve was just trying to point out the indefectability of the Church. Acting like Chicken Little about the Church's woes would seem to indicate a lack of faith in that.]]> By: Publius http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2324#comment-11042 Publius Tue, 06 Jun 2006 19:27:48 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2324#comment-11042 Okay, is the Archbishop of Canterbury in the habit of cracking down in the Anglican Church? Are there Anglicans waiting in anxious hope for him to do so? Perpetual malcontents on the conservative/traditionalist side in the Catholic Church may be deficient in their trust of the hierarchy not letting things "go to the dogs," but I still don't see that they have that much in common with Anglicans — ecclesiologically or otherwise. After all, things have gotten pretty bad in the past (see the period contemporaneous with Luther).
Perpetual malcontents on the conservative/traditionalist side in the Catholic Church may be deficient in their trust of the hierarchy not letting things "go to the dogs," but I still don't see that they have that much in common with Anglicans — ecclesiologically or otherwise. After all, things have gotten pretty bad in the past (see the period contemporaneous with Luther).]]> By: Funky Dung http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2324#comment-11036 Funky Dung Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:19:11 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2324#comment-11036 Publius, Steve means that the attitude expressed is more in keeping with Anglican/Episcopalian ecclesiology than Catholic ecclesiology. By: Publius http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2324#comment-9972 Publius Sat, 13 May 2006 18:37:16 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2324#comment-9972 <i>If you wait in anxious hope for Rome to put the smackdown on Bishops, (over which Rome already has more control by universal appointment than at any time in her history) you happen to disagree with, then your a Latin-rite ‘Piscopalian… of a different stripe.</i> Since when are Episcopalians of any stripe in favor of the Pope cracking down? And how <i>would</i> the Pope crack down on a group of bishops that doesn't recognize his authority, anyway? If you wait in anxious hope for Rome to put the smackdown on Bishops, (over which Rome already has more control by universal appointment than at any time in her history) you happen to disagree with, then your a Latin-rite ‘Piscopalian… of a different stripe.

Since when are Episcopalians of any stripe in favor of the Pope cracking down? And how would the Pope crack down on a group of bishops that doesn't recognize his authority, anyway?]]> By: Funky Dung http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2324#comment-9970 Funky Dung Sat, 13 May 2006 18:18:34 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2324#comment-9970 <blockquote>"BTW…this is a great blog!"</blockquote> I'm glad you like it. :) "BTW…this is a great blog!"

I'm glad you like it. :) ]]> By: Tom Smith http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2324#comment-9968 Tom Smith Fri, 12 May 2006 10:19:30 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2324#comment-9968 Steve, "If you wait in anxious hope for Rome to put the smackdown on Bishops, (over which Rome already has more control by universal appointment than at any time in her history) you happen to disagree with, then your a Latin-rite ‘Piscopalian… of a different stripe." I take issue with this. Firstly, is there really a problem with desiring Peter to cause bishops to be more adherent to Peter's own mandates? Secondly, I would contend that Rome, indeed, does *not* have more control over the episcopal college than it has in the past. Yes, it's true that the Pope reserves to himself the right to appoint bishops. This right, however, gets limited by the fact that one man simply can't be familiar with every candidate for the episcopacy throughout the world. The nuncio to a particular nation speaks to the diocesan bishop about his replacement, and the bishop gives him a list of names. The nuncio then recommends one name to the Pope. If either the bishop or the nuncio is a bad apple, there really is no way to stop the wrong man from being consecrated. Also, once a man has been raised to the episcopacy, the Pope seemingly has no control. When was the last time a bishop clearly in violation of decrees from Rome was disciplined or removed? Recently, how many bishops in material heresy have been made to retract error? Even during the period of investiture, Popes were able to exercise a high degree of control over bishops through the brandishing of canonical penalties. When was the last time a Pope took care of a bad bishop by putting his diocese under interdict, or excommunicating him?
"If you wait in anxious hope for Rome to put the smackdown on Bishops, (over which Rome already has more control by universal appointment than at any time in her history) you happen to disagree with, then your a Latin-rite ‘Piscopalian… of a different stripe."

I take issue with this. Firstly, is there really a problem with desiring Peter to cause bishops to be more adherent to Peter's own mandates?

Secondly, I would contend that Rome, indeed, does *not* have more control over the episcopal college than it has in the past. Yes, it's true that the Pope reserves to himself the right to appoint bishops. This right, however, gets limited by the fact that one man simply can't be familiar with every candidate for the episcopacy throughout the world. The nuncio to a particular nation speaks to the diocesan bishop about his replacement, and the bishop gives him a list of names. The nuncio then recommends one name to the Pope. If either the bishop or the nuncio is a bad apple, there really is no way to stop the wrong man from being consecrated.

Also, once a man has been raised to the episcopacy, the Pope seemingly has no control. When was the last time a bishop clearly in violation of decrees from Rome was disciplined or removed? Recently, how many bishops in material heresy have been made to retract error? Even during the period of investiture, Popes were able to exercise a high degree of control over bishops through the brandishing of canonical penalties. When was the last time a Pope took care of a bad bishop by putting his diocese under interdict, or excommunicating him?]]> By: Dennis http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2324#comment-9965 Dennis Fri, 12 May 2006 03:12:14 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2324#comment-9965 BTW...this is a great blog! Dennis
Dennis]]> By: Dennis http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2324#comment-9964 Dennis Fri, 12 May 2006 03:10:42 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2324#comment-9964 Anthrakeus, Thanks for giving me a better understanding. I totally agree with you. One thing about the Church is it does allow a lot of flexibility in being orthodox. Dennis
Thanks for giving me a better understanding. I totally agree with you.

One thing about the Church is it does allow a lot of flexibility in being orthodox.

Dennis]]>