Skip to main content

Wake Up To What?

I'm trying to be patient. Wake up to what? That Pope Francis isn't the Pope? That we should join the SSPX? What are you implying? Out with it, already! And the other thing about it is, you don't have to like Mark Shea. I'm definitely not his best bud or anything. He's already admitted more than once--gasp!--that he's a sinner who's been uncharitable with commenters and the like. I remember the big apology. I blogged about it. I said "thank you," and prayed for him. I had been sort of mad about what appeared to be a vendetta against Paul Ryan. That's exactly what it was, the issue. Which is not to say he hasn't gone soft, or that we're putting our faith in princes, as it were. Just that we need to try to hear people out, even if it's hard. Suffice it to say, I haven't had any more gripes with Mark Shea. Frankly, it speaks well for him that a friend of the blog really likes his stuff.

But you don't have to like Mark Shea. I don't care. But Rick Miller, I'm calling you out. Reading The Remnant will screw you up. Don't do it. Just don't. I love the Extraordinary Form, too. That's not the point. And Skojek, and Michael Voris, too. If they're not in schism, they encourage it. And we should have no part in it.

Anyway, someone else pointed out that Mark Shea has no training in theology. I hope we're not going there. The Church with buckets and buckets of unlearned saints is going to get credentialistic now?

The other thing I wanted to do was read the "About Us" page. Second paragraph:

Never before in the history of the Church has there been a Mass that featured women in the sanctuary, laymen giving out Holy Communion, Communion being given out in the hand, altar girls, polka and rock music, clowns, kissing and hugging, priests offering Mass facing the people, etc.

And I'm done. Some of these are abuses; some of these are legitimate expressions of preference. But if you don't accept the Mass of Paul VI as a valid expression of the Church's faith, as it was intended, mind you, you're not being a good Catholic. I just blogged about this yesterday. And what do I know? Well, I do have some training in theology. And I know the heart of the gospel, and when a spirit of bitterness has taken hold. Even Mark Shea doesn't deserve that.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un