Replies

Thanks very much for the ping. :o)

I must admit that I don't have the time to hack through the whole article, but I'm confident that I read enough to realize that the article is full of errors and misconceptions.

Mario Dirksen does not believe in the infallibility of Vatican II, or the validity of the Mass of Paul VI. His writing is not thoroughly reasoned, and is very emotional in nature. Particularly dangerous is his use of materials from a schismatic group (Society of St. Pius X), as a source for the development of some of his positions.

By the way, I think the major problem that some people have with the "New Mass," and with Vatican II, is the liberalism that ended up surrounding them. Unfortunately, many things from Vatican II were intentionally taken out of context and misused by libs to further their own agenda. I think it's important to see that neither the Mass, nor Vatican II generally, *gave* us liberalism, but rather, that liberalism hijacked them. We English speaking people were cheated by the ICEL (International Committee for English in the Liturgy - I've been following this fight for years!) translations of the Editio Typica of the Missale Romanum. When I hear the Latin directly translated into English, the current Mass is very beautiful, and the language is sacred. We have the libs amongst the American Bishops to thank for the watered down English version, as well as for innovations such as "Communion in the hand." We've *really* been ripped off!

I support the work of groups such as Adoramus, that have labored for years to obtain an accurate translation of the Mass for liturgical use. I also support Pope John Paul's promulgation of the right of the faithful to attend the Latin Tridentine Mass. I maintain that words such as "venial" and "mortal" lets a person know where they stand, as opposed to "lesser" and "greater." And it's a CHALLICE, not a cup, for heaven's sake!

Don't get me wrong, I'm on the right wing, but it's a right that's rightly balanced.

I also think that, among other things, Mario just doesn't get the truth that everything really *is* a mystery. He also doesn't understand doctrinal development. It's not *new* doctrine, but rather an understanding of a doctrine on a deeper level, or a particular aspect of it.

On a final note, Mario likes St. Thomas Aquinas, but he needs to realize that if there was no such thing as doctrinal development, Aquinas would have been branded as a heretic, rather than proclaimed a Doctor of the Church.

So much to say, and so little time....

Thanks very much for the ping. :o)

You're welcome. And thanks much for your contribution. At least it's reasonable and consists of more than personal attacks.

His writing is not thoroughly reasoned, and is very emotional in nature.

It would be nice then if you pointed out the errors. You only talk in general terms about the situation since Vatican II, which is easy to do, but it's harder to get down to brass tacks and handle a topic like the phenomenological personalism of JPII, which was the subject of the article.

Particularly dangerous is his use of materials from a schismatic group (Society of St. Pius X), as a source for the development of some of his positions.

I don't believe the article contained any references to the SSPX, except as references to books for further reading. As a sedevacantist, Derksen takes a very different position than the SSPX.

I think the major problem that some people have with the "New Mass," and with Vatican II, is the liberalism that ended up surrounding them.

If that's what you think, then you ought to make some attempt to document that position. But all the evidence points the other way. Try reading the "Index of Leading Catholic Indicators" by Kenneth Jones, reviewed by Pat Buchanan here: An index of catholicism's decline

Seattle Catholic also had an interesting article in which an mathemetician analysed some of the numbers documenting the decline since Vatican II and quantified the possibility that there was no cause and effect relationship. It was smaller than the odds that OJ's DNA didn't match the drops of blood. Springtime Decay by David L. Sonnier

We English speaking people were cheated by the ICEL (International Committee for English in the Liturgy - I've been following this fight for years!) translations of the Editio Typica of the Missale Romanum.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding. The New Mass was always meant to be done in the vernacular. The vernacular missals are the primary documents. The Latin version of the New Mass really has little relationship whatsoever to the vernacular versions because it was created afterwards, and large chunks of it were lifted wholesale from the traditional Latin Mass. But the Consilium always recognized that the Latin New Mass was virtually a dead letter while the vernacular Missals would be used for more than 99% of all instances of the New Mass.

It's not *new* doctrine, but rather an understanding of a doctrine on a deeper level, or a particular aspect of it.

Really? So perhaps you will be able to explain how the quote from Redemptor Hominis is simply "understanding of a doctrine on a deeper level" rather than changing the content of the Catholic faith.

Mario likes St. Thomas Aquinas, but he needs to realize that if there was no such thing as doctrinal development, Aquinas would have been branded as a heretic, rather than proclaimed a Doctor of the Church.

This is an old chestnut with no truth to it. St. Thomas Aquinas was recognized as a great saint and a great doctor of the Church within his own lifetime. So was his contemporary St. Bonaventure. Those teaching genuine Catholic faith are not branded as heretics. But the people in the hierarchy since Vatican II are certainly not to be compared to Aquinas or any other genuine Catholic. They are not developing doctrine, they are destroying it.