|
Post by guillaume on Jan 19, 2010 13:32:37 GMT
Thiberville is a tiny town in Normandy. Incredibly, in a country who counts 95,5 % of non practising catholics..., the number of people attending mass in this village is high. And there is a reason for it. L'abbé Michel, Father Michel. Orthodox, celebrating the NO in front of God, AND the old mass, conservative, celebrating a mass in memory of the death of Louis XVI every year, F Michel manages to have a church FULL every sunday. And he does not do that with guitars, drums and rock concert. But just doing his job properly and in a traditional way. He has been in this successful parish for 23 years, and the Bishop wanted to remove him. AS you know, this had created a buzz all over the country and internationally ! The bishop had dared to confront the parishioners themselves. Those revolted. With the help of the medias covering the issue, and the elected, abbé Michel, who refused to go, is actually staying in Thiberville. The bishop wanted to replace him by a modernist priest saying mass from time to time only ! Father Z can revolt as well saying "oh, it is not nice to hurt a bishop"... those parioshioners has no choice and it is because of their reactions, that the Bishop "changed" his mind and now is waiting for the Vatican to rule over the issue. Knowing Benedict the XVI, we can trust our beloved Pope to make a decision in favour of Abbé Michel and the tradition. Tradition will never die, modernism will.
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Jan 19, 2010 18:15:31 GMT
Thats a nice story. Good old Father Mick!!!! ;D
However your final statement "Tradition will never die, modernism will", .........well I'm afraid history has shown that this is almost never the case.
Continually trends and practices change over time. Its always been thus and when this isnt the case, its usually the exception rather than the rule I would suggest.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 20, 2010 13:38:32 GMT
Dear harris, Thanks for your thoughts - however, I would remind you that this thread is in the Catholics Forum section which is meant to allow Catholics to discuss matters of mutual interest among themselves. If you want to respond to it, please do so in the Open Forum. This is not a formal warning, because the distinction between Catholic Forum and Open Forum has not been enforced in the past so it would be unfair to enforce it straight away - but I am giving notice that I intend to enforce it in the future. After 31 January we will have the official position as stated by Michael G - non-Catholics posting in the Catholic fora will be warned the first time and banned the second (with some scope for leniency if I decide it was inadvertent). Catholic posters are asked not to post DIRECT criticisms of/attacks on atheists and other non-Catholic posters in the Catholic threads unless they post them at the same time in the open forum, since it is unfair to attack them from a vantage-point where they cannot reply. If they do so, their posts may be moved to the open forum where the atheists etc can respond, as I did yesterday with the thread started by Loughcrew about the countmeout.ie website. Again, this will be enforced flexibly, bearing in mind that statements of Catholic views on certain topics necessarily involve INDIRECT criticism of non-Catholic standpoints, but the rules of fair discussion apply to Catholic posters as well - they do not have carte blanche. I am copying this to the Housekeeping thread in the Open Forum, and any further discussion should take place there.
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Jan 20, 2010 15:46:05 GMT
Dear harris, Thanks for your thoughts - however, I would remind you that this thread is in the Catholics Forum section which is meant to allow Catholics to discuss matters of mutual interest........ Hibernicus, Can you clarify the above? Are you suggesting I am an Atheist?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 20, 2010 17:05:45 GMT
I was under the impression that you were. Can you clarify this?
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Jan 20, 2010 20:26:38 GMT
I was under the impression that you were. Can you clarify this? I am a Catholic and am currently studying the following course in the Open University: www3.open.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/course/ad317.htmMy vews may be contemporary on certain religious issues but I make no apologies for that. They are my views.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 21, 2010 11:15:06 GMT
OK, so you're a liberal Catholic. Fair enough; the ban on posting in the Catholic Forum doesn't apply to you. My apologies.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 21, 2010 11:20:43 GMT
Now that we have resolved the question of Harris's religious allegaince, here are a couple of questions for him: (a) What do you mean by describing your views as "contemporary"? Present-day modernists, traditionalists, and all the shades of theological opinion in between are all equally "contemporary". I take it you mean that your views are somehow more in tune withy the spirit of the age - can you enlarge on this? (b) In relation to your original criticism of Guillaume - surely adherence to a tradition does not mean that everything stays unchanged, but that it develops in line with a particular internal logic, a la Cardinal Newman's Essay on the development of Doctrine. These two questions, I suggest, have something in common. Is history more like the growth of an oak tree from an acorn (where it's the same organism) or like a journey along a road where previous stops are left behind?
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Jan 21, 2010 20:34:38 GMT
I just sent you a private message hibernicus......
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Jan 21, 2010 22:28:56 GMT
Will you argue on this forum against the Traditionalist view? When I set the forum up I hoped to hear from liberal or modernist Catholics.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Jan 22, 2010 15:34:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 22, 2010 15:35:09 GMT
In justice to Harris, I should explain why I thought he was an atheist. This was based on the fact that his approach to the Bible appeared to be based pretty much exclusively on the historical-critical method - that is, seeing it simply as a historical document and one which is inherently suspicious. I was aware that he had been a theology student (I did not know that he is one at present) but this is not in fact incompatible with subsequently becoming an atheist; indeed, the complaint that theological courses which treat the historical-critical method as the only legitimate approach to the Bible lead many students to lose their faith. I think I may also have confused my impressions of him with those of openly-proclaimed atheists such as Hemingway. Now that I think it over, I do remember forming an earlier impression that Harris was writing from some form of liberal-Catholic or liberal-Christian perspective rather than as an atheist. I apologise for misunderstanding Harris's position, and I wish to state that this entry is written to be taken at face value, without mental reservation and does not in any way insinuate anything other than its plain and straightforward meaning. For anyone who is unclear what the historial-critical method is, I will post a brief explanation in the Bible thread.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 19, 2010 12:56:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by melancholicus on Feb 23, 2010 23:08:53 GMT
Thank you for the plug, Hibernicus.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 1, 2010 12:51:48 GMT
My pleasure; we Irish Catholic traditionalists are so scattered that we need to keep in touch to respond to events and help one another by sharpening our wits and raising our spirits.
|
|