New Book about the Apostasy. Any thoughts or comments?

[Navidad]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Robert has an email listed here if someone wants to contact him:

https://interpreterfoundation.org/author/roberts/

His profile has him last visiting in June…his ‘vacations’ from us are typically shorter.

He posted in October on the Interpreter blog:

https://interpreterfoundation.org/royal-skousen-presentation-on-the-current-status-of-the-book-of-mormon-critical-text-project/

Not that it has anything to do with your post, but there have been many Skousens here in the colonies who were very instrumental in their founding. There was one named Owen Skousen who lived here as a child and young man who became a professional baseball player!

[3DOP]

Hi Navidad. Faithful Catholics must be conservative AND progressive. The First Vatican Council is a warning for any Catholic who gives slight regard to tradition OR progress in matters of faith. 

1) New insights must be compatible with old truths.

"...that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding."

2) The mysteries of the faith are inexhaustible and new insights are inevitable.

"...let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding.

---Both quotes are from Session Three, ch. 4, para. 14 of the First Vatican Council, April 24, 1870

An example of recession from the meaning which Holy Mother Church has once declared would be to deny the permissibility of the death penalty when it has been sanctioned for the entire history of the Church until now. I don't care very much if the nations decide to never impose the death penalty. I care very much that what the Church teaches is compatible with her 2,000 year history.      

An example of progress would be the definition of papal infallibility which did not come about until just 150 years ago, over 18 centuries after Pentecost. I do not know, but it would not be troubling at all to discover that St. Peter himself did not fully grasp the prerogatives that belonged to the bishop of Rome. I deny that every truth of the Catholic faith came forth from the Apostles fully developed.

It is my hunch that the next doctrine to be developed will be in regards to the ecumenical council. What teachings of a council are to be considered infallible? Under what conditions might a faithful Catholic question the teachings of an ecumenical council? For the record, I am not one who insists that the Second Vatican Council Vatican has erroneous teachings in it. We need to be satisfied to interpret that Council in the light of Tradition. I believe this is what Pope Benedict XVI meant in speaking of an hermeneutic of continuity. If we cannot eventually discover that continuity, it will be time for the Church herself to declare definitively the necessary conditions for the teachings of an ecumenical council to be infallible. The following highlights what is disturbing the Church more than every today:

"The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.

This idea is made stronger by things that are now happening. That which previously was considered most holy — the form in which the liturgy was handed down — suddenly appears as the most forbidden of all things, the one thing that can safely be prohibited. It is intolerable to criticize decisions which have been taken since the Council; on the other hand, if men make question of ancient rules, or even of the great truths of the Faith — for instance, the corporal virginity of Mary, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the immortality of the soul, etc. — nobody complains or only does so with the greatest moderation. I myself, when I was a professor, have seen how the very same bishop who, before the Council, had fired a teacher who was really irreproachable, for a certain crudeness of speech, was not prepared, after the Council, to dismiss a professor who openly denied certain fundamental truths of the Faith.

All this leads a great number of people to ask themselves if the Church of today is really the same as that of yesterday, or if they have changed it for something else without telling people. The one way in which Vatican II can be made plausible is to present it as it is; one part of the unbroken, the unique Tradition of the Church and of her faith."

---Josef Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), address to the bishops of Chile, July 13, 1988

 

Edited November 25, 2022 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I did not take it as a dig. I found it very interesting. I, for one am always interested in learning more about any faith. I am also fascinated by your personal journey since I personally know those from whence you have come. It seems you have stayed on the conservative or traditionalist side of wherever you have journeyed. I am a mix of conservative/traditional and progressive. I am also interested in realizing from you, Miserere, the Catholic leaders in our area, and from the Antiochan Orthodox group I was was familiar with, the great diversity in the Catholic/Orthodox tradition, especially post Vatican II. I find the diversity rich, especially as some take a very monolithic view of Catholicism in history and in the world today. I am also fascinated by the spiritual journey of those Catholics like G. K. Chesterton, one of my very favorite authors.

Did you know I once published a feature article in Catholic Digest? I got a personal call from the Archbishop of Philadelphia about that, telling me how much he enjoyed the article! That was a treat since I grew up in the Philly area. Take care.

I would be interested in your article for the Digest. Was it Archbishop Chaput, when he was in Philadelphia? When I met my wife of 40 years, long ago at Hyles-Anderson, she pronounced Philadelphia this way as i remember: Fulldulfia. It was very charming. I almost blew it though by joking that I was a New York Islanders fan. That did not score me any goals. She was a teenager and fan for the Bobby Clarke Flyers that won the Stanley Cup in the 70's. At twenty, she remained aggressively partisan. Its been a while, but I would never blaspheme again by pretending to like Bobby's opponents. Heh.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I would be interested in your article for the Digest. Was it Archbishop Chaput, when he was in Philadelphia? When I met my wife of 40 years, long ago at Hyles-Anderson, she pronounced Philadelphia this way as i remember: Fulldulfia. It was very charming. I almost blew it though by joking that I was a New York Islanders fan. That did not score me any goals. She was a teenager and fan for the Bobby Clarke Flyers that won the Stanley Cup in the 70's. At twenty, she remained aggressively partisan. Its been a while, but I would never blaspheme again by pretending to like Bobby's opponents. Heh.

I don't remember his name. It was around 2011 or 2012. He was very outgoing and friendly. I remember he told me that he had lived, worked, or studied somewhere in Pennsylvania previously and was familiar with the Mennonites. I wrote a non-fiction account of my encounter with Father Charles Fehrenbach, a Redemptorist priest who was in charge of the St. John Neumann shrine in Philly. The archbishop had personally known Father Fehrenbach. I think the article won some kind of an award, but that was a long time ago, so I really don't remember. Flyers, Eagles, and Phillies fans are fans for life. I worked in the Philadelphia school district as a consultant. I think I won the contract because I could name every player by position on the infamous 1964 Phillies - Johnny Callison was my favorite!

Edited November 25, 2022 by Navidad

[3DOP]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I don't remember his name. It was around 2011 or 2012. He was very outgoing and friendly. I remember he told me that he had lived, worked, or studied somewhere in Pennsylvania previously and was familiar with the Mennonites. I wrote a non-fiction account of my encounter with Father Charles Fehrenbach, a Redemptorist priest who was in charge of the St. John Neumann shrine in Philly. The archbishop had personally known Father Fehrenbach. I think the article won some kind of an award, but that was a long time ago, so I really don't remember. Flyers, Eagles, and Phillies fans are fans for life. I worked in the Philadelphia school district as a consultant. I think I won the contract because I could name every player by position on the infamous 1964 Phillies - Johnny Callison was my favorite!

Johnny Callison! Left handed hitter, throwing right handed? Like Carl Yastrzemski? I had his '64 baseball card. I am trying to think without cheating who else they had. Jim Bunning and Chris Short for a pretty great lefty righty duo every four days. Its a little early for Richie Allen...Okay, I am going over to my '68 Baseball Encyclopedia. The Classic. Bobby Wine...one of those great fielding/no hit shortstops of the era. Like Hal Lanier, Dal Maxvill, Eddie Brinkman. Who was the Oriole...Tip of tongue...Mark Belanger! Richie Allen WAS there with 29 homers, second only to Callison's 31. I had Wine's card and Clay Dalrymple (Catcher)...one of those guys that you end up with four or five cards while you are trying to get Willie Mays (who I had). Wow. Mark Belanger wasn't there yet though. The O's had Luis Aparicio(!) and a lot of their lineup that was waiting for Frank Robinson. 

I loved pre-Vatican II Baseball. Its all Novus Ordo today. They need a Council to get back to Tradition!

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Johnny Callison! Left handed hitter, throwing right handed? Like Carl Yastrzemski? I had his '64 baseball card. I am trying to think without cheating who else they had. Jim Bunning and Chris Short for a pretty great lefty righty duo every four days. Its a little early for Richie Allen...Okay, I am going over to my '68 Baseball Encyclopedia. The Classic. Bobby Wine...one of those great fielding/no hit shortstops of the era. Like Hal Lanier, Dal Maxvill, Eddie Brinkman. Who was the Oriole...Tip of tongue...Mark Belanger! Richie Allen WAS there with 29 homers, second only to Callison's 31. I had Wine's card and Clay Dalrymple (Catcher)...one of those guys that you end up with four or five cards while you are trying to get Willie Mays (who I had). Wow. Mark Belanger wasn't there yet though. The O's had Luis Aparicio(!) and a lot of their lineup that was waiting for Frank Robinson. 

I loved pre-Vatican II Baseball. Its all Novus Ordo today. They need a Council to get back to Tradition!

Don't forget Tony Taylor and Cookie Rojas - two excellent second basemen.

[3DOP]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Don't forget Tony Taylor and Cookie Rojas - two excellent second basemen.

Good man. I did forget, but with help, I remember. I was a West Coast Giants guy. McCovey, Cepeda, Jim Ray Hart, and Willie of course. Marichal and G. Perry. Great teams. But power couldn't beat Koufax, Drysdale, and Osteen.  2 to 1. 1 to nothing. The stinking Dodgers, however terrible their offense, beat our guys.

[3DOP]

Hey all...okay...

Edited November 26, 2022 by 3DOP
Silly

[3DOP]

Ok ok?