Replies

As I said in my earlier reply to BlackElk, the point was whether you could deal with Fr. Somerville's criticisms without resorting to attacks upon him for so-called "heresy" and "schism." So far I see lots of personal assaults, but I don't see any reasoned defense of the Novus Ordo Mass against his testimony regarding the perfidy of the ICEL.

Most of us around here are rather critical of ICEL, so I don’t expect you will see much disagreement with his criticisms of the translations. They aren’t very good. That is far different from the attempt you so often seem to make, in trying to pretend some of those on the traditionalist right aren’t schismatic.

I look on the term "neo-Catholic" in the same light. It describes a certain position, one which was being criticized by Fr. Somerville, but which others (like Stephen Hand) might be perfectly happy to identify themselves with.

Well, only in the same sense that anti-choice describes a certain position, aka the pro-life position.

They are juridical terms with very specific, and very perjorative, connotations. They are used merely as accusations hurled at someone in order to delegitimize the person's arguments.

Well, the theological position of a heretic is nearly automatically delegitimized isn’t it? Do you take theology lessons from heretics? I think the label is useful for just that purpose. If a man is a schismatic, that should be considered when considering his theological arguments. IMHO, it is foolish to try to consider theology or philosophy in a vacuum. Knowing who the author is, his agenda, who his target audience is, etc., goes a long way to understanding his argument. Knowing a man is a schismatic or a heretic does likewise.

For example, you’ll note a nice poster on this thread, drstevej, has made a couple comments (since I mentioned him I bumped him). Were you to peruse his theology, you would no doubt note that he is not Catholic. Do you not think it useful to know he is a heretic in evaluating his comments? I do, it doesn’t mean his comments aren’t worthwhile or accurate, but it does flesh them out. So does calling ultima a heretic, at times, aid others in understanding him.

patent +AMDG

Most of us around here are rather critical of ICEL, so I don’t expect you will see much disagreement with his criticisms of the translations. They aren’t very good.
OK, I will go the whole nine yards. Not only are ICEL's works "[not] very good," they are ABOMINABLE TRAVESTIES of translation, VOIDING the meaning of various passages, and loaded with theologoumenon (such as the blatant change from 'I believe' to 'We believe' in the Credo.
ICEL is run by, if not composed of, subversives and not by coincidence there are a lot of homosexuals in that bunch.
Having said that,

The fact that the Church marches on despite ICEL is a direct proof that UltR and Zvi are WRONG--the gates of Hell will NOT prevail.

I might use the same term about you: you are a heretic insofar as you buy into the modernist heresy which seeks to Protestantize Catholicism. As for your calling me a heretic, the charge is another slander and nothing else. What Catholic doctrine have I ever rejected? Name one. I do not even reject Vatican II, though I have called it unwise and believe it has given the enemies of the faith the excuse they needed to attack the Church from within. Nor have I rejected the Pope, though I have been critical of his policies. So explain how I am a heretic.