A Foot In Both Camps…

A Foot In Both Camps…

“Catholic Answers” is an organization made up of lay apologists whose stated mission is to “Explain and Defend the Faith.” Despite a growing contingent of Tradition friendly personnel, Catholic Answers remains, for the most part, a staunch defender of all post-Conciliar novelties.  This is no more apparent than in the organization’s radio show, “Catholic Answers Live.” The show consists of a host and an apologist who discuss important Catholic topics and take calls from listeners. As far as important Catholic topics go, the following are just a few of the Catholic news stories that broke on Friday, May 31st ; any of which would have made for a very interesting discussion:

Cardinal Godfried Danneels defends legislation for same-sex marriage

Major Obama backer negotiated Archdiocese of NY’s coverage of contraception, abortion

Canon Law Case Against Georgetown Submitted to Cardinal Wuerl

EXCLUSIVE: Leaked documents prove abortions at Catholic hospital despite Cardinal’s denial

Instead, “Catholic Answers Live” ran a full two hour radio show on May 31st on a much more important epidemic ruining the Church today. Yes, you guessed it: “Radical Traditionalism.” For those lucky enough not to have tuned in, host Patrick Coffin and guest apologist Tim Staples took listeners on a guided tour of the various dangers of believing and practicing the Catholic Faith of 2,000 years if one doesn’t also accept every post-conciliar novelty as a gift from Heaven.

Praise for Fr. Greeley?

One news story of the day that the host did decide to cover was the passing of Fr. Andrew Greely. For those of you who are not familiar with Fr. Greely, he was an outspoken critic of infallible Catholic teaching on contraception, divorce, and the ordination of women. However, when Fr. Greeley wasn’t speaking out on these issues, he found the time to write pornographic novels. In fact, the LA Times reported that, “Glistening loins, unfettered breasts and rapes were so abundant in his fiction that the National Catholic Register said the author had “the dirtiest mind ever ordained.”[1] The sale of these novels made Fr. Greely a very rich man, enabling him to buy three homes — one in Chicago, another in Tucson and a third at Grand Beach, Michigan.[2] Despite these expenditures; however, Fr. Greely was somehow able to save enough money to donate thousands of dollars to the presidential campaign of Barack Obama in 2008.[3]

While admitting that Fr. Greely wrote some “sexually frank” novels, host Patrick Coffin told listeners that he had friends who, “thought a lot about his attempt to get outside the regular means by which priests communicate, with varying degrees of success.” He also reminded the audience that Fr. Greeley, “was certainly a man of the left in the Catholic Church in America, but did a lot of sociological research and had a voice.” This was apparently the host’s “Catholic” response to the passing of such a priest on a national radio show. Logically, if such “tolerance” can be directed towards such a “man of the left in the Catholic Church” the same should be shown towards those on the right in the Catholic Church, correct? Not so much.  Click here to read the rest of this article

When I addressed our wonderful audience at the recent Catholic Truth Conference, I used some artefacts to prompt my (very bad) memory, rather than rely on notes. One of the things I forgot to put into my bag of goodies, however, was a shoe. I’d meant to point out that it is not possible to keep a foot in both camps as this Church crisis worsens by the day. The article above on “Catholic Answers” underlines my point. No use having “a growing contingent of Tradition friendly personnel” if they are willing to go along with many – or any –  of the errors of Vatican II, from the advertising of ecumenical and other harmful activities in their local parish to praying what one of our cheekier bloggers terms the Gluminous Mysteries of the Rosary.  That’s what’s called keeping a foot in both camps. Hedging one’s bets. Opting for the easy life.

As for Fr Greely – I remember, some years ago, struggling to think of a suitable answer when a teaching colleague (in a non-denominational school in a very Protestant part of Scotland) told me that he was reading a novel by this priest and asked me where, in my opinion, he got the experience to write his sexually explicit material. Asked the same question now, I wouldn’t be stuck for an answer. Not for a second.

Anyway, what do you think – IS it possible to have one foot in the camp of “Tradition” and one foot in the post-conciliar novelty camp? Or would that mean you had two left feet?

Comments (182)

  • editor

    Petrus, since there is no “reply” button at your post where you ask about civil divorce, I’m replying here.

    The Church does, in fact, permit civil divorce, just not divorce and remarriage. For the purpose of dealing with the various practical matters, e.g. disposing of the material goods of the marriage/custody of children etc. a civil divorce is permitted. Just not remarriage.

    June 18, 2013 at 7:51 pm
    • Petrus

      Editor,

      Yes, I read that in the New Catechism. I don’t buy it. On the one hand it says that divorce is immoral and “an offence against chastity”, but on the other hand it tolerates it for the reasons you mention above. Typical Modernist “double speak” to me.

      June 18, 2013 at 8:29 pm
      • pius x

        Maybe the Church could change the grounds for an annulment to allow the woman, or any abused party to get an ecclesiastical ‘divorce’ or annulment and remarry. After all a marriage that has disintegrated due to adultery or abuse is no longer a valid marriage because promises have been broken i.e to remain faithful, to have, to hold, richer, poorer etc. The person committing the abuse should be penalised. As I’ve said before, a woman, or any abused party has a right to marry a new partner who loves and worships her as opposed to the previous one.

        Pius X

        June 18, 2013 at 8:49 pm
      • Petrus

        Pius x,

        Please read my posts above. Future actions do not render a Sacrament invalid. I know Protestants don’t accept that marriage is a Sacrament, so that might be why you have trouble with this.

        A valid marriage ends only with death. End of. A change is never gonna happen.

        June 18, 2013 at 9:04 pm
      • angela

        Pius X
        An ‘annulment’ is not the dissolving of an existing marriage but rather a declaration that a real marriage never existed IN THE EYES OF GOD on account of some dire defect or impediment that was present AT THE TIME THE COUPLE EXCHANGED THEIR VOWS e.g. if one of the two parties did not intend to enter a permanent union until death, no marriage would take place despite the appearances.

        I know from experience. This is a very complex area and not taken lightly at all. Why should the Church ‘ change the grounds ‘ for anything. This is a SACRAMENT we are talking about. Not our ‘rights’. St Rita of Cascia married an extremely abusive man but stayed with him – for the love of God.

        Semperfidelis has summed it up beautifully – valid marriage = no annulment, invalid marriage = annulment i.e. the marriage was never a marriage in the eyes of the Church and God.

        Pius X can I suggest that you get some really good , sound catechisms especially Council of Trent, The Catechism of Saint Pius X, A Brief Catechism for Adults: A Complete Handbook on How to be a Good Catholic by Fr William J. Cogan. You will see that the teaching of the church is perennial and doesn’t not change.

        PS you could do with getting some solid instruction from a good, traditional priest who will tell you how it is and not what you ‘ think’ or ‘want’ it to be.

        June 18, 2013 at 9:20 pm
      • editor

        Petrus, I checked this some time ago with a traditional priest – for practical reasons divorce is permitted. A divorce is essential before an annulment can be granted, I believe.

        I don’t think there’s any contradiction. If you consider that the Church has always taught that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation, but also that false religions may be tolerated (but not promoted) in a Catholic country for the sake of public peace etc. it is, I think I’m right in saying, the same rationale that allows for divorce for practical reasons while prohibiting remarriage after divorce.

        June 18, 2013 at 10:02 pm
      • Petrus

        Yes, editor, I do see what you mean. See my message below.

        The Catechism says this:

        “Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture.”

        So, if divorce is a “grave offense against natural law” how can it be tolerated?

        June 18, 2013 at 10:10 pm
  • semperfidelis

    Oh for goodness sake Pius, don’t you get it? If a marriage was valid to start with IT CANNOT BE ANNULLED!

    June 18, 2013 at 8:52 pm
    • Petrus

      Spot on, Semperfidelis.

      I also understand what the editor is saying. A civil divorce is sometimes tolerated, as a legal mechanism only for sorting out legal matters. But make no mistake about this – even after the civil divorce, the couple are still husband and wife.

      June 18, 2013 at 9:05 pm
      • editor

        Of course, Petrus – you are absolutely right (for once – kidding!). The couple remain married even after civil divorce. That’s why there is no cause for scandal if an abandoned spouse, for example, who’s had to obtain divorce (or been divorced by a husband/wife) approaches for Holy Communion. He/she is still married and faithful to that divorced spouse. Only if he/she remarries, is he/she prohibited from receiving Holy Communion.

        Which reminds me…

        Keep those signatures rolling in – the petition is coming along nicely but we want it to be racing along nicely!

        June 18, 2013 at 10:05 pm
      • Petrus

        “Of course, Petrus – you are absolutely right,”

        Had to happen one day!

        June 18, 2013 at 10:11 pm
      • Athanasius

        Count yourself among a privileged few, Petrus. In my case, it’s always “see you, yer no right!”

        June 18, 2013 at 10:55 pm
      • editor

        “I also understand what the editor is saying…”

        That, too, had to happen one day!

        I just wish it would happen to more people!

        June 18, 2013 at 11:47 pm
  • Petrus

    “in the heid”

    June 18, 2013 at 11:23 pm
    • editor

      Now, now, Athanasius IS right in the heid – sometimes…!

      June 18, 2013 at 11:47 pm
      • Athanasius

        Well, sometimes is better than never. We must be thankful for small mercies and even smaller brains!

        June 19, 2013 at 12:53 am
      • angela

        I thought I had joined a serious discussion about annulment. Obviously not – seems those who haven’t had direct experience know better !

        Help that young man (Pius X) who is very clearly seeking answers about the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church instead of puerile exchanges.

        PS Thank you for ignoring me & my comment completely – I am , as they say, outta here.

        June 19, 2013 at 9:15 am
      • editor

        Angela,

        The only reason nobody has commented on your post is that it is excellent and in no need of any correction. Since it’s your first post here I should have said that up there, to make you feel welcome, but I was swamped with various things and only made flying visits to the blog yesterday. My apologies.

        June 19, 2013 at 9:28 am
      • pius x

        Thank you Angela. I am seeking answers about the Church, and not puerile exchanges which semperfidelis seems to enjoy. Maybe he should get ‘it’ and stop talking as if I am a ‘cradle Catholic’ which I am not. Who is the Patron Saint of the uncharitable? He should say a Novena to them.

        Petrus

        Why do you talk as if I don’t read your posts? How strange. Let me quote some of it back to you:

        ‘Common grounds for an annulment are an invalid ceremony, coercion, or defective intent ie. entering into the marriage with the intention of being unfaithful, without proper understanding or acceptance of the lifelong nature of marriage or an unwillingness to be open to life.’

        If one party went into the marriage with an intent to, or the knowledge that they may cheat, and did so, would that render the canonical marriage invalid? After the annulment, if obtained, would the other party be allowed to remarry?

        Pius X

        June 19, 2013 at 10:23 am
      • Eileenanne

        Yes to both your questions in the last paragraph. It hinges on the intention of the person at the time of the “marriage” – not so much on what happened afterwards.

        If the marriage is invalid, it is invalid for both parties, so the one who went into the “marriage” fully committed and with the required degree of understanding is also free to marry after the declaration of nullity is granted.

        June 19, 2013 at 10:29 am
      • Petrus

        Pius X,

        Eileenanne has pretty much answered your questions below. The one thing I would pick up on is when eileenanne said “not so much on what happened afterwards.” What happens afterwards has no bearing on the validity whatsoever.

        June 19, 2013 at 11:15 am
      • Petrus

        Pius X,

        I would argue that if a couple entered into marriage with the intention of regulating birth by using contraception then their marriage is also invalid is they do not have the correct intention.

        I would agree with Angela. Please get some decent instruction from a traditional priest. When are you due to be received into the Church?

        June 19, 2013 at 11:17 am
  • pius x

    Could someone tell me the fundamental difference between the King James Bible and the Douai-Rheims Bible?

    Petrus,

    Regarding the Catechisms you recommended I’m ordering Trent and the last one by Fr Cogan from Waterstone’s. Can’t find the St Pius X Catechism. I already have ‘A Catechism of Christian Doctrine’ CTS Pocket Classics Millenium Edition, ‘The Faith of the Catholic Church’ A Summary (CTS) and ‘I Believe: A Little Catholic Catechism’. Are these OK?

    Pius X

    June 19, 2013 at 11:04 am
    • Eileenanne

      Petrus,
      You are right in that what happens after the “marriage” is not grounds for annulment. It could, however, be important as regards evidence.

      June 19, 2013 at 11:18 am
      • Petrus

        Absolutely, eileenanne. Very important.

        June 19, 2013 at 11:20 am
  • Petrus

    Pius X,

    The King James Bible is a bastardised version of the Bible. Parts are mistranslated to suit Protestant theology. Of course, the seven books removed by Martin Luther are not contained in the King James version.

    June 19, 2013 at 11:19 am
  • pius x

    Petrus

    Glad we’ve cleared that one up. With your little point on contraception in a marriage, would you say to a couple who could only ‘afford’ two children should no longer have intercourse? I always say that a couple should have as many children as they can financially afford, and if not just stay celibate. I caused a storm in a lecture by saying using contraception defeats the objects of a Christian marriage, which is to bring up Christian children. Of course all the Secularists and C of E rabble jumped down my throat, and I said ‘well, not that Protestants or heathens possess the definitive truth anyway’. I like cranking these twits up. As for your query, I hope to be received next Easter at the Vigil.

    Pius X

    June 19, 2013 at 11:52 am
    • Petrus

      Pius X,

      To be honest, I’m usually very sceptical when couples claim they cannot afford to have another child – especially when it’s “no more than two”. Our Lord asks us to be generous. If that means forsaking a car, holiday etc then so be it. Natural Family Planning is permitted, but only in very serious circumstances. To use Natural Family Planning for reasons that are not very serious is a mortal sin.

      June 19, 2013 at 12:06 pm
      • pius x

        What about those Catechisms which I mentioned above? Or was it someone else who put them up, it might have been Angela. Even so, what do you think?

        Pius X

        June 19, 2013 at 12:30 pm
    • editor

      The mentality of having as many children as you can “afford” fails to allow God’s divine providence to work. Who was it said: “do not worry about tomorrow, what you are to eat or what you are to wear… Your Father in Heaven knows that you need all of these things… ”

      Of course, if we choose not to rely entirely on ourselves and not God’s Providence, he’ll leave us to our own devices. Then, from what we are seeing around us, even “affording” the fashionable two (one boy, one girl, ideally!) becomes a struggle.

      June 19, 2013 at 1:23 pm
  • pius x

    Petrus

    ‘To use Natural Family Planning for reasons that are not very serious is a mortal sin’.

    What would constitute this? I know Benedict XVI said condoms were permissible if one spouse had AIDs. Although condoms don’t always work, i.e they can split, and some STDs are spread by skin to skin contact, of which I am sure you are aware and don’t need me to tell you. I’m blushing just typing this. People would be able to have large families if the government had a pro-Natalist policy, funded Mothers to stay at home, gave fathers a high wage as Leo XIII argued for in Rerum Novarum 1891, as well as various tax breaks etc. But the family is no longer glorified, as we now see. Did you hear about Putin banning Russian children from being adopted by French and American parents because of gay marriage. The Church needs to be led by someone like Patriarch Kirill as he defends Christian morality better than the Pope, as the Russian Church is not that ecumenical.

    Pius X

    June 19, 2013 at 2:26 pm
    • Petrus

      Pius X,

      You make some excellent points in your post above.

      Have a look at the papal encyclical “Casti Connubi” by Pope Pius XI. Serious reasons for using NFP are extreme financial hardship, health reasons etc.

      June 19, 2013 at 3:45 pm
  • pius x

    Has anyone looked to verify those books which I put above?

    Pius X

    June 19, 2013 at 2:27 pm
    • editor

      Pius X,

      If you have a Catechism of the Council of Trent, that will serve your purpose for now but I certainly wouldn’t order anything published by the CTS these days. They are no longer reliable. I’ve quoted some very dodgy material on homosexuality from them in the newsletter. Avoid.

      Instead, I’d recommend the Angelus Bookstore -good solid, reliable reading can be ordered from them.

      June 19, 2013 at 5:22 pm
      • Christina

        I beg to differ on one point, Editor, Pius X did, I think, get his copy of ‘A Catechism of Christian Doctrine, Millennium Edition’ on my advice. While it is a 1985 revision of the 1889 ‘Penny Catechism’ which taught me my early faith, it does not differ from it in theological matters, but only in disciplinary ones.

        Pius X will know from reading it:
        Q. Can any human power dissolve the bond of marriage?
        A. No human power can dissolve the bond of marriage, because Christ has said: ‘What God has joined together, let no man put asunder’.
        ‘Has’ might have been ‘hath’ in my childhood version, but I don’t think that’ll raise too many hackles.

        Pius X, you have been receiving the advice to go to a good traditional priest from bloggers for a long time, but haven’t, it seems, done so. Angela, as a new blogger (hope you stay) doesn’t know this but Semperfidelis does, and so is understandably frustrated Oh for goodness sake Pius, don’t you get it?. So say I. As we have trodden this ground over and over again, I have a wee suspicion (correct me if I’m wrong) that you rather enjoy raising hares for us all to chase, even if they’ve been round the course a few times already!

        And aren’t we off-topic anyway?

        June 22, 2013 at 2:24 pm
  • Athanasius

    Petrus,

    I understand what you mean about NFP, but I wouldn’t be too quick to raise the spectre of mortal sin where this is concerned. We live in a very demanding, stressful world in which women are often forced to work to make ends meet. God is not a monster, he does understand the stress that couples are put under by the unjust financial burdens placed on them.

    Use of artificial methods of birth control most certainly DO constitute mortal sin. But the rhythm method is not against nature, since God made it a part of the body’s biological cycle. I cannot see, then, how the use of that cycle can constitute mortal sin. I don’t believe the Church has ever declared the rhythm method to be mortally sinful.

    Of course the ideal for Catholic families (the will of God) is to have large families whenever and wherever possible, but I think the general rule of thumb in the matter is that Catholic couples do not seek to restrict God’s will for selfish reasons.

    The difference between artificial birth control and the rhythm method is that those who use the latter leave the consequences in God’s hands. Those who use the former are making themselves their own God.

    June 19, 2013 at 4:51 pm
    • Josephine

      Athanasius,

      The “rhythm” method died a death ages ago. the Dr Billings method of natural family planning is now promoted instead, where the woman can identify when she is fertile and avoid marital intimacy at that time of the month.

      However, while there is no law against couples abstaining from sexual intercourse for a period of time if they are very keen not to have more children, it certainly would be objectively a grave sin to use NFP as a form of Catholic birth control. That is clearly stated in Humanae Vitae, I think I’m right in saying. Only for a temporary period and in grave circumstances, should a couple enjoy marital intimacy while taking action (albeit natural) to avoid conception.

      Every walk of life has its sacrifices inbuilt, and marriage is no exception. They can, of course, decide to abstain from marital intimacy if they really want to avoid conceiving more children, but I’ve always understood that the use of NFP is to be exceptional and not an alternative to contraception, no matter how good the intention.

      June 19, 2013 at 5:33 pm
    • Petrus

      Athanasius,

      I spoke with a priest of the SSPX about this a few years ago and it use NFP as a form of contraception without a very grave reason, constitutes a grave sin.

      The situation you describe is completely different. Under the conditions you describe, financial hardship, of course it is permitted – even encouraged. However, many Catholic couples do believe that they can use NFP as a contraceptive whenever they like. This is indeed a grave sin. It’s known as a “contraceptive mentality”.

      Of course, the usual conditions for mortal sin apply, so I’m speaking in a general sense, rather than specific.

      June 19, 2013 at 5:58 pm
      • Augustine

        I spoke with a priest of the SSPX about this a few years ago and it use NFP as a form of contraception without a very grave reason, constitutes a grave sin.

        A few years ago, I spoke to an otherwise very good diocesan priest who has played a large part in the pro-life movement in Scotland. I mentioned to him that NFP was morally neutral in that it good either be employed for a good end (prevention of pregnancy for a grave reason) or a bad end (with a contraceptive mentality). He seemed quite surprised at this ‘revelation’ but, to his credit, also willing to rethink his position. I hope he has.

        As a tangent, it feels that as a Catholic you can run the gauntlet of two sides. On the one side you have liberal Catholics of a certain vintage who see nothing wrong in contracepting and frown on “taking things too far” i.e. being generous with life.

        And then you have a certain breed of traditional Catholic who, if they see another Catholic couple with either no or just a few children, assume straight away: “contraceptors”, regardless of whether the couple might be dealing with infertility or diminished infertility or, indeed, actually have a grave reason.

        June 19, 2013 at 6:19 pm
      • Petrus

        Augustine,

        Yes, I know what you mean. Disgraceful and so uncharitable. I would never make any comment about a couple’s private business.

        June 19, 2013 at 6:24 pm
      • editor

        Exactly. I know someone (who thinks she’s a traditional Catholic) who asked another young mother why she was not having more children – she already had more than the 2.5 approved societal quota! Reply of that taken aback young mother – “it just hasn’t happened for us”. In other words, God didn’t send any more.

        If only she’d added “but, anyway, mind your own blankety blank business” that would have been the perfect answer!

        June 19, 2013 at 7:17 pm
      • editor

        I haven’t read this article right through but it might be interesting – I stumbled across it just now and thought of this recent discussion on NFP here. Hope it is of interest and heresy free – Rorate Caeli is usually very solid.

        June 19, 2013 at 11:36 pm
      • Athanasius

        Petrus

        Yes, exactly right.

        June 19, 2013 at 6:46 pm
      • editor

        I know you were telling Petrus that HE was “exactly right” but you need to add the same in reply to my post (without throwing in “for a change”!)

        June 19, 2013 at 7:18 pm
      • Athanasius

        editor,

        Yes, exactly right – AS ALWAYS!

        June 20, 2013 at 2:29 pm
  • pius x

    Did you all here what Cardinal Joachim Meisner said? He demanded that the great she-Devil Angela Merkel, a Lutheran (snort of haughty derision- whose worst them or Anglicans?) make women stay at home and grant families some of the generous benefits which I mentioned in the above post. When I become Prime Minister, all this will come into being, don’t fret poor lambs, all will be well. It will be Popery through the back door.

    Pius X

    June 19, 2013 at 8:37 pm
  • pius x

    Could anyone tell me what NFP is, obviously it’s natural family planning, but as you know I’ve been brought up a nominal Protestant with all that entails, so I’m used to condoms (not that I’ve used one, or ever done anything outside marriage- just in case Editor starts foaming at the mouth). With NFP doesn’t a woman have to monitor her fertility? I discussed this with my Priest (he’s not the Parish priest) and he mentioned (Editor removed vulgarity) I think he said that as a result of something what I had said. (Editor in whatever context he said it, avoid him. Apart from the fact that he hasn’t got a clue about NFP, he’s a danger to souls speaking like that.)

    Pius X

    June 20, 2013 at 11:27 am
  • Petrus

    Pius X,

    I have no idea what your priest means by that comment, but it doesn’t sound very edifying. In fact, it sounds quite vulgar.

    It’s important to note that Natural Family Planning can also be used to aide conception, rather than prevent it. Yes, it involved monitoring the fertile and infertile cycle. If you do a Google search you will find quite a comprehensive description.

    June 20, 2013 at 11:59 am
  • pius x

    Editor,

    I apologise using that phrase, and although it was crude, I used it deliberately as a) I was quoting and b) it was relevant. I notice Petrus didn’t get ‘edited’ when he used the word ‘bastardised’ to describe the King James Bible, he could have said heretical or corrupted.

    Editor: “B-ised” simply means “illegitimate” although I do wish people would not use it. It’s not, in fact, a crudity or a swear word, it just means “illegitimate”. You’re right, though, in that it would be better to use another word, one that has no connotations of being a crudity. I may well replace it in future, for this reason, since if people do not know the technical, literal meaning of the word, it would appear that I am being inconsistent.

    Pius X

    June 20, 2013 at 2:18 pm
    • Petrus

      Pius X,

      There’s nothing wrong with the word I used, as it was used in the correct context. It certainly wasn’t a crudity. I used it as it has more of an emphasis than illegitimate.

      June 20, 2013 at 8:43 pm
      • editor

        That’s what I said, Petrus, but since it is sadly a word commonly used as a crudity/bad language, I think it is best avoided. There are plenty of other words that express the same truth, so not a big deal, as I’m sure you’ll agree when you think over the consequences of NOT agreeing, i.e. a trip down the pay scale …

        June 20, 2013 at 10:31 pm
      • Petrus

        Agreed!

        June 20, 2013 at 11:36 pm
  • pius x

    Petrus

    Please follow this link. It seems that your beloved Douay-Rheims Bible was influenced by the King James Version. Please follow this link. http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4300&CFID=66352089&CFTOKEN=76728514

    It seems that Bishop Challoner made a boo-boo when revising the DR Bible.

    Why doesn’t the Editor start a petition to the Pope to make Andre-Joseph Leonard made a Cardinal, not only would it be right and just, but also a slap in the face to Cardinal Danneels.

    In the NO Mass when the Priest says ‘fruit of the vine and work of human hands etc’, is that a proper Latin to English translation, or was it borrowed during Vatican 2 from Protestants? I watched the Easter ceremony at Paisley Abbey, and the Protestant witch doctor said that. I mentioned this to a young Catholic friend and his eyes popped out. Were they right to do so?

    Pius X

    June 20, 2013 at 2:51 pm
    • Miles Immaculatae

      It’s interesting that the renowned American Neo-Catholic Jimmy Akin should bash the DR and those who use it, when he is on record having said:

      My personal preference is for the New King James Version, but since this is not available in an edition with the deuterocanonicals, I normally use the Revised Standard Version: Catholic Edition.

      Like, there’s nothing totally Protestant about the NKJV and the RSV is there? And he slurs us for using a translation because he claims it’s based on a protestant version? What planet is he on? These Neo-Cat are schizophrenically contradictory.

      As it happens, the original DR which pre-dates the KJV, was itself an influence on the translators of the KJV. Bishop Challoner, with the intention of making the already excellent DR even more fantastic, decided to ‘diligently compare’ the DR to the original languages (Greek and Hebrew I assume). He also decided to cherry pick the very best renderings from the newish KJV, so as to put together the best possible English phraseology for our amazing Catholic Bible. Good on him I say.

      No Traditional Catholic who loves the English language would dismiss the beauty in the KJV just because it’s Protestant. For example, the Book of Common Prayer is the wicked work of a Protestant heretic named Cranmer. It’s very meaning for existing is evil, but that doesn’t mean I can’t say some of the English in it is rather beautiful. True Catholics have no problem borrowing anything that helps us to express the majesty of the Catholic faith. Consider how the Classical and Baroque architecture favoured during the Counter-Reformation is inspired by the architecture of the pagan Greeks and Romans! Check out Maderno’s façade of St Peters Basilica and you’ll notice there are Corinthian columns. Does that mean Saint Peter’s is pagan? No. Likewise, the DR isn’t Protestant! (the influence of the KJV on Challoner is over-hyped anyway, go look at a parallel translation site and you’ll notice they are very different. The DR is virtually still a literal translation of the Vulgate)

      The words “Fruit of the wine and work of human hands, it will become for us our spiritual drink” are a complete Novus Ordo invention. It doesn’t exist in the Traditional Rite of Mass. It is a Jewish table blessing. It’s not even in the Book of Common Prayer! I’ve always thought the phrase ‘spiritual drink’ sounds rather vague and pagan.

      Be careful what you read by Jimmy Akin. He is no friend of the SSPX. He has publicly argued against the validity of their confessions and marriages and he is a proponent of the whole ‘disobedient/ no-better-than-Protestants/ essentially-just-schismatics’ narrative.

      June 20, 2013 at 5:11 pm
      • Athanasius

        Miles Immaculatae,

        An excellent post, thank you.

        June 20, 2013 at 10:03 pm
      • Petrus

        I agree, Athanasius. I would just add that whilst the language of the KJV may be beautiful, the book itself should be avoided.

        June 20, 2013 at 10:29 pm
      • Athanasius

        Petrus,

        Agreed!

        June 22, 2013 at 6:17 pm

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: