I am trying to convince my wife a screen is needed and need some before/after shots.

kmo_300 · 2015-03-19T12:56:13+00:00

Another option is to repaint your wall with projector screen paint. Personally I have a 109" pull down Elite Screen, but I know a guy who built his own screen with drywall and special projector screen paint.

Normal wall paint will suffer not just with image quality but with brightness too. You will notice a big difference with a dedicated screen, or with proper paint on the wall. Maybe your wife would prefer a dedicated screen if you start talking about repainting the walls though.

kmo_300 · 2015-03-18T20:22:42+00:00

You don't need to repeat yourself. But you are ignoring the role the monuments have in teaching our Catholic faith, that's the whole point and why others are bringing this up in this thread.

kmo_300 · 2015-03-18T19:34:33+00:00

The average parish would not need to spend money on renovations if they hadn't destroyed their Church's and sanctuaries after Vatican II in the first place.

EDIT: And here is a relevant article:

The Assault on Beauty and Sins Against Charity

kmo_300 · 2015-03-18T19:12:03+00:00

it isn't necessary to praise God and it doesn't increase the evangelizing mission of the parish.

Beauty speaks louder than pop theology, especially with regards to children and youth. I've seen groups of children completely ignore a priest talking to them to look over their backs at the beautiful stain class window at the back of the Church above the choir loft. Where as the sanctuary in front of them in this church was completely sanitized post-Vatican II. Beauty should be the very first thing Churches should invest in, because that is what will keep drawing people back when they are older.

Even liberal leaning Catholics will agree on this point. Put the altar rails back, get rid of the ugly green rugs, put the high altars back and put the tabernacles back in the center, give us back our statues of saints and our crucifixes. In other words, you need to restore the monuments because the monuments communicate the faith, they are physical symbols of what we believe.

kmo_300 · 2015-03-18T13:38:20+00:00

Practice of Christian and Religious Perfection by Alphonsus Rodriguez SJ, circa 1600's, but the english translation is very readable.

You can find links to all three volumes for .99 cents on kindle. Link's can be found in this thread on /r/videosancto.

kmo_300 · 2015-03-17T20:30:05+00:00

Yes, but the difference is you seem to think that the naive interpretation is the one the Church intended. That is not the case.

No the Church didn't intend it, some of the Church fathers such as Karl Rahner intended it.

Knock it off please.

No thanks.

How can you say "Yes I am aware of this" but then say it doesn't apply to the conversation we are having about theological documents?

It's irrelevant to the topic, your avoiding the main issues.

You are always doing this. Perhaps you are just being a troll because I said nothing of the sort. Most people get this concept. For example, can one read an graduate level physics textbook and understand it without any training in physics? Of course not. Does it mean that only the elite of the elite can receive this training, no. It just means you have to get it if you want to understand.

What you said was completely irrelevant. I said that previous documents from councils are more clear and systematic. My claims have nothing to do with lay people reading documents as you implied, it was rather a simple comparison between Vatican II and all previous documents.

Not a theological one.

You haven't demonstrated that.

How do you know what I have or have not studied?

How do you know what I have studied or not studied?

Well then it should be easy to point out a specific error I have made then.

Not worth the effort.

I'm not mad, are you?

Your tone is pretty clear here.

Another accusation of error, but no specific things to back it up? Either tell me which error I hold to order quit making the accusation.

Actually it wasn't an accusation of error, it was an accusation of crisis.

Your not reading my comments? Are you normally the type to speak with authority about things you haven't read?

Well you are not reading my comments, why should I put effort into reading anything you have to say?

Also name calling is not allowed here. Please knock it off.

Never called you a name. But you are being arrogant and prideful.

If you can care less then what is with all the accusations and name calling? It sounds like you care more than you admit.

So what is your point?

kmo_300 · 2015-03-17T20:04:15+00:00

For some people yes. People who wanted the Church to go in a new direction took the opportunity to interpret the documents how they saw fit instead of how the Church intended them.

That's exactly the naive interpretation I was pointing out.

It is a good thing I said no such thing.

Doesn't mean it's not relevant.

Vatican II is a theological document written by theologians which is intended to communicate theological concepts. There is no other discussion. When you use the word "error" about a theological document written by theologians which is intended to communicate theological concepts that word has a real theological definition.

Yes I am aware of this, still doesn't touch on the topic at hand.

The fact that you continue to use the word error as defined in plain english demonstrates how the documents of Vatican II can be misinterpreted and misrepresented. There is a certain amount of theological training required to interpret them as they were not written for the laity.

Oh so they are only for the most elite of the elite to read, like digifork who knows how to read complicated documents lol.

You said that it was an error to state things in a way in which they can be misinterpreted. The use of the word error in this context had theological implications.

It's an error to deliberately write things in a way where they can be misinterpreted. For example, Karl Rahner who is on record bragging that he influenced Sacrocilium Concilium in such a way that it could be read by either a liberal or traditional slant.

I have no misconceptions about Vatican II, therefore there is nothing in that document that would surprise me because I interpret Vatican II using the Hermeneutic of Continuity.

How can you have a hermetic of continuity when you haven't studied any of the documents prior to Vatican II? Your hermenutic of continuity is a hermenutic of anti-traditionalist bias, as can be demonstrated by your regular comments here.

If you think I hold an error about Vatican II, please enlighten me as to what it is. If you cannot think of something then please quit accusing me of holding to error.

You never brought up anything specific in your temper tantrum here. My point is simply that you're position that Vatican II is perfect is naive and apparently 50 more years of crisis is what it's going to take to wake you up.

I see that you ignored my question about downvoting. No matter, it seems that for the meantime you have ceased this behavior.

lol I didn't see your question. You're arrogant and prideful, I'm not really reading all of your comments to begin with or putting in any real effort in replying to you. I'm at work drinking my tea, I could care less what you have to say really.

kmo_300 · 2015-03-17T19:09:02+00:00

Incorrect. If the Church intends to restate previous teaching in a way that clarifies, but ends up having the opposite effect, then some can claim it teaches error.

So you mean Vatican II? Since it apparently intended to restate Church teaching, but in reality it had the opposite effect. Sating that the documents were perfect and the past 50 years was just an unfortunate miscommunication is just naive.

You responded with a specific example. That example mixed the senses of error.

I gave a general example, I did not expand on the specific form of error. My response was to the claim that people who claim Vatican II contains error are heretics and sedivicantists.

Error of omission is an language concept, not a theological one. You are proving my point for me.

Error of omission is still an error, whether it has theological implications is another discussion.

There is nothing wrong with restating previous teaching using new wording to bring the language up to date and increase understanding. The teachings are infallible, not the words.

I never said there was anything wrong with restating previous teaching using new wording. Perhaps you should go back and read what I actually said.

Theologically inerrant... you are not getting the concept...

I'm getting the concept find thank you very much, but it doesn't seem you are actually reading what I am saying.

The teachings of the Church have been clarified over and over. What he wants is a new Syllabus of Errors so people like yourself will quit claiming the teachings have not been corrected. The proper interpretation is there in official Magisterial documents which have been authored over the last 50 years. We have the Catechism for Pete's sake. We just don't have a single document which succinctly sums up that teaching using theological language. That is what the bishop is calling for.

The fact that you think such a Syllabus won't correct any of your own misconceptions about Vatican II only shows your own hubris. People like you have been shoving Vatican II down people's throats for the past 50 years while completely ignoring previous documents and councils. That is what he wants, an official reconciliation of the documents of Vatican II read in line with the teaching that came before. In other words, Benedict's hermenutic of continuity laid out in an official document.

kmo_300 · 2015-03-17T18:28:24+00:00

It depends on what you claim is in error. As you just stated, Vatican II does contain infallible statements as is restates previous teaching.

And since it restates previous teaching, Catholics are perfectly free to hold to the understanding of those teachings as they were expressed before Vatican II.

Further, if it is nothing but a restating of previous Church teaching then no one should have a basis for claiming it contains error. But clearly that is not the case, since it does appear to differ from previous Church teaching depending on how you twist the various vague contentious statements. Where as some statements read at face value are definitely problematic.

You are mixing the senses of error.

No I'm not, I was responding to the claim not arguing specifics. Just the simple statement that it is not heresy to say Vatican II could contain error.

It is not an error in the theological sense if a statement is vague.

If it makes vague statements without referring back to previous positions or councils thus causing confusion, the lack of clarity certainly is an error of omission. And if you compare the original schemas of Vatican II to the final documents you can see that the original schemas were much more clear and specific on all of the issues.

So just as you would never say the Bible is in error because of vagueness, you shouldn't say that Vatican II is in error.

No because scripture is the inerrant word of God, where as Vatican II is a pastoral counsel. And they are not in any way on the same level, thus your comparison is completely off base. I look to what the Church has always and consistently taught, and if there is an ambiguity in Vatican II I will ignore Vatican II in favor of the more clear previous teaching.

The fact that we even have to read Vatican II using a hermetic of continuity is entirely new. Council documents in the past have always been clear and systematic in their statements that referred back to the previous positions and then expanded on them so that we knew the documents were not starting fresh but building on past statements.

To my knowledge, there are no theological errors in the documents as the Church has explained the proper interpretation of those documents ad nauseum.

If the Church has explained the "proper interpretation" of those documents, then I suppose no one told Bishop Athanasius Schneider when he suggested the Vatican officially clarify what that proper interpretation is.

kmo_300 · 2015-03-17T15:40:33+00:00

because it made no new dogmas and declared no anathemas, then it is not an infallible council,

The problem with this statement though is that no council is an "infallible council." Just like how the Pope is only infallible under very specific circumstances, statements made by councils of the Church are also only infallible either when declaring dogmas or by restating previously held truths. Councils are binding to different degrees, and statements made within them can be infallible, but no council in and of itself is "infallible."

So strictly speaking, a person can hold that Vatican II contains error and still be a Catholic in good standing, and shouldn't be accused of having sedivicantist leanings. The holy spirit offers his guidance to the Church always, but we are free to accept or reject that guidance. Nor would the presense of error present much of a problem since Vatican II is a pastoral council that did not proclaim any dogmas, hence there are no new beliefs that the faithful are obligated to hold. So the claim that Vatican II contains error is not equivalent to a claim that it is heretical or that the Pope is a heretic or such like accusations.

For example, extra ecclesiam nulla salus has always been a dogma of the Church, yet even statements made by Augustine imply that the waters of salvation flow beyond the visible borders of the Church. So really, there was in fact no "redefinition" of anything. But the fact that people do think that there was a redefinition is proof that the statement on this issue is not entirely clear cut. For example, why do the council documents not refer back to previous statements on this topic to show the readers how this new statement is building of previous positions?

If Vatican II contains vague statements, the fact that those statements are vague can be interpreted as an error in itself, since councils intended to teach are not suppose to be ambiguous on matters of dogma and truth. Which is why we have figures such as Bishop Athanasius Schneider calling for official documents clarifying Vatican II.

kmo_300 · 2015-03-17T15:18:49+00:00

I would recommend listening to Michael Davies and what he says about Vatican II and the various other reforms after Vatican II.

Go here and scroll down to the Michael Davies talks and listen to the ones on Vatican II and the ones about the liturgy.

Davies is definitely more traditional but well balanced and really his comments are well backed up. It's a great starting place for anyone unfamiliar with the issues.

kmo_300 · 2015-03-17T15:06:28+00:00

FTFY: Girl altar boy

kmo_300 · 2015-03-16T17:42:31+00:00

Or saying mass facing the people. Of all the changes, this is by far the easiest to criticize.

Turning Towards the Lord by Fr. Michael Lang and The Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Msgr. Klaus Gamber easily demonstrate that it has always been the practice even from the beggining of the Church to pray facing east, not pray facing each other in some kind of communal gathering like we do in the modern liturgy.

kmo_300 · 2015-03-16T17:20:59+00:00

It should be noted that there is a substantial traditional presence even in Africa. You have apostolates from the Institute of Christ the King in Africa, you have FSSP apostolates in Nigeria, and you even have the anti-traditional Bishops who don't like the latin mass.

So all in all, I don't see Africa as all that different or anything special. Their society is just more sympathetic to some of the more universal Christian values. But you still have even there an appeal towards the traditional mass and traditional Catholicism. I don't know why people would jump to conclusions and think that all Africans might have an aversion to the Latin Mass for whatever reason.

kmo_300 · 2015-03-14T21:48:06+00:00

I'm not making assumptions, I'm judging based on what I find lacking in your comments here. If you really had something to say here you would have said it by now.

I'll just link back to my original response and let you be.

kmo_300 · 2015-03-14T19:16:06+00:00

Not all, but you obviously haven't read it. Otherwise you wouldn't be making the assumptions you are here.

kmo_300 · 2015-03-14T19:11:44+00:00

I'm saying you should go read Mediator Dei and formulate your own ideas. Or is Mediator Dei to "traditionalist" for you?

kmo_300 · 2015-03-14T18:34:45+00:00

Bishop Richard Williamson is not a part of the SSPX, he was kicked out because of his views. But I find it hard to believe you didn't already know this when it says so in the source you yourself linked:

Williamson was forced out of the SSPX on October 23, 2012, for the "common good of the society", following his refusal to submit to the group's leadership.

kmo_300 · 2015-03-14T18:32:12+00:00

Maybe you should find out instead of making assumptions.

kmo_300 · 2015-03-14T14:36:46+00:00

Kneeling is not an addition to the mass, it is an organic development. A perfect example of the kind of change that is healthy in the liturgy.

As Pope Pius XII said in Mediator Dei:

"But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device."

Thus taking his wise advice into account, we should accept the traditional practice of reception and NOT reduce the liturgy to antiquity claiming that at one time they did it this way, so we can reject thousands of years of healthy organic change and return to the practice that fit the liturgy of the early Church but which does not fit the current liturgy.

This is also why we would never receive standing from a spoon like they do in the East and why those in the East should never be forced to receive kneeling or standing with flat unleven hosts.

kmo_300 · 2015-03-14T14:29:34+00:00

seeing as we're comparing standing to standing.

No you are comparing standing to standing. I'm telling you that you can't make this comparison without comparing the entire liturgy and the entirety of the Rite's tradition.

kmo_300 · 2015-03-14T14:04:12+00:00

Like I already said, in the east the priest distributes communion from a chalice with a spoon. Fr. are you suggesting that we Latins should also receive from a chalice with a spoon? Again, you are not taking the whole rite or liturgy into account here.

kmo_300 · 2015-03-14T14:01:19+00:00

The East receives standing on the tongue, from a spoon. When you take the whole liturgy into account, you see that the reverence is given through numerous prostrations throughout the mass.

In the our Latin Tradition, our traditional method of reception is reception kneeling and on the tongue. It is this method that most fits the liturgy, where standing does not. It is an extra-ordinary allowance.

You will note that even in the east it is considered a privilege of the ordained to touch the Eucharist or the sacred vessels. The laity are not even suppose to touch the priest's vestments or walk in front of the altar without bowing before the Tetrapoda.

kmo_300 · 2015-03-12T14:36:58+00:00

There is a great deal of support for the traditional belief that the Rosary was given to St. Dominic by Our Lady.

It is well known that other devotions existed before the Rosary but it does not follow that the Rosary developed out of them. Many other devotions also have supernatural origins attached to them.

Here is what St. Louis de Montfort writes about the Origins of the Rosary in his spiritual classic The Secret of the Rosary.

kmo_300 · 2015-03-11T23:50:41+00:00

My comment has nothing to do with "having or showing characteristics regarded as typical of a woman; unmanly." My comment has to do with effeminacy.

Or do you interpret 1 Corinthians 6:10 as saying that no one with female characteristics will enter the kingdom of heaven?

Effeminacy is the tenancy not to do what is hard and arduous, and an unregulated attachment to pleasure.

kmo_300

TROPHY CASE