|
|
|
|
Cajetan
Level 1
Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: Jun 17, 2010
|
To Myrna:
The bloggers on http://www.pistrinalitugica.blogspot.com are squarely in the sedevacantist camp and have no objection to Cekada’s general thesis about the Novus-Ordo Mass. Moreover, they are admirers of the CMRI and in the past have defended the institute and its priests against the vicious public attacks of Dolan and Cekada. The blog’s objection is to the many errors in this so-called “definitive opus” and “monumental masterpiece.” It is a shoddy piece of writing and editing that hurts the sede cause because Cekada is so achingly unprofessional.
I have read WHH, and my objections go far beyond the errors of style, fact, and language, which the blog has so well documented. I cringe with embarrassment when I read such amateurish argumentation like “And anyway, why should the priest say he goes ‘to the altar of God,’ if he goes to the chair of the president instead?” and such childish, awkward observations like “‘narrative-reactualization’—a neologism that sounds like it’s connected with restarting a dead car battery.” (And I’m not just referring to the usage error of employing “like” as a conjunction.) If these were just two instances, we could overlook them since sometimes even good Homer nods. However, WHH is full of these clerical Eddie-Haskellisms.
Overarching the book’s manifold technical and expository problems is the fact that WHH is really very superficial in its conclusions and very shallow from the standpoint of theological analysis. It never rises above the level of a beer-fueled college bull session; it does not represent an advancement of our argument against the vile New Mass; and it is unlikely to convince anyone who is not in our camp. In sum, WHH is so poorly conceived and reasoned that it will never be a threat to our adversaries, who will probably pass over it in silence. And that is its greatest failure.
|
|
| Posted Jul 24, 2010, 9:04 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
SJB
Level 3
Group: Members
Posts: 1,748
Joined: Aug 25, 2009
|
| Cajetan said: | To Myrna:
The bloggers on http://www.pistrinaliturgica.blogspot.com are squarely in the sedevacantist camp and have no objection to Cekada’s general thesis about the Novus-Ordo Mass. Moreover, they are admirers of the CMRI and in the past have defended the institute and its priests against the vicious public attacks of Dolan and Cekada. The blog’s objection is to the many errors in this so-called “definitive opus” and “monumental masterpiece.” It is a shoddy piece of writing and editing that hurts the sede cause because Cekada is so achingly unprofessional.
I have read WHH, and my objections go far beyond the errors of style, fact, and language, which the blog has so well documented. I cringe with embarrassment when I read such amateurish argumentation like “And anyway, why should the priest say he goes ‘to the altar of God,’ if he goes to the chair of the president instead?” and such childish, awkward observations like “‘narrative-reactualization’—a neologism that sounds like it’s connected with restarting a dead car battery.” (And I’m not just referring to the usage error of employing “like” as a conjunction.) If these were just two instances, we could overlook them since sometimes even good Homer nods. However, WHH is full of these clerical Eddie-Haskellisms.
Overarching the book’s manifold technical and expository problems is the fact that WHH is really very superficial in its conclusions and very shallow from the standpoint of theological analysis. It never rises above the level of a beer-fueled college bull session; it does not represent an advancement of our argument against the vile New Mass; and it is unlikely to convince anyone who is not in our camp. In sum, WHH is so poorly conceived and reasoned that it will never be a threat to our adversaries, who will probably pass over it in silence. And that is its greatest failure.
|
The link to the blog had a typo. It has been corrected above.
|
.........................
Contra factum non valet illatio
|
| Posted Jul 26, 2010, 2:02 am |
|
Ignored by: 1
|
|
|
MyrnaM
Level 3
Group: Members
Posts: 1,163
Joined: May 10, 2010
|
| Cajetan said: | To Myrna:
The bloggers on http://www.pistrinalitugica.blogspot.com are squarely in the sedevacantist camp and have no objection to Cekada’s general thesis about the Novus-Ordo Mass. Moreover, they are admirers of the CMRI and in the past have defended the institute and its priests against the vicious public attacks of Dolan and Cekada. The blog’s objection is to the many errors in this so-called “definitive opus” and “monumental masterpiece.” It is a shoddy piece of writing and editing that hurts the sede cause because Cekada is so achingly unprofessional.
I have read WHH, and my objections go far beyond the errors of style, fact, and language, which the blog has so well documented. I cringe with embarrassment when I read such amateurish argumentation like “And anyway, why should the priest say he goes ‘to the altar of God,’ if he goes to the chair of the president instead?” and such childish, awkward observations like “‘narrative-reactualization’—a neologism that sounds like it’s connected with restarting a dead car battery.” (And I’m not just referring to the usage error of employing “like” as a conjunction.) If these were just two instances, we could overlook them since sometimes even good Homer nods. However, WHH is full of these clerical Eddie-Haskellisms.
Overarching the book’s manifold technical and expository problems is the fact that WHH is really very superficial in its conclusions and very shallow from the standpoint of theological analysis. It never rises above the level of a beer-fueled college bull session; it does not represent an advancement of our argument against the vile New Mass; and it is unlikely to convince anyone who is not in our camp. In sum, WHH is so poorly conceived and reasoned that it will never be a threat to our adversaries, who will probably pass over it in silence. And that is its greatest failure.
|
Thanks, I'll pass this information on to Fr. Casimir, and see what he has to sayl
Thanks also for the blog link.
I will confess, when I came here this thread was already pages and pages, and I have never really read through it, so I am in the dark about the details of Bishop Dolan, although I gathered by the little I did read what was said to be going on.
|
.........................
2 Paralipomenon Chapter 7 Verse 14 And my people, upon whom my name is called, being converted, shall make supplication to me, and seek out my face, and do penance for their most wicked ways; then will I hear from Heaven, and will forgive their sins and heal their land.
|
| Posted Jul 26, 2010, 2:27 am |
|
Ignored by: 4
|
|
|
|
|
SJB
Level 3
Group: Members
Posts: 1,748
Joined: Aug 25, 2009
|
| Lighthouse said: | | I have no idea why anyone would call the site in question a "scholar's blog". |
Who was making this claim?
| Lighthouse said: | | Furthermore, the way it is written, it looks as if it might be just one person, or at most a couple or three persons. |
What about the content?
|
.........................
Contra factum non valet illatio
|
| Posted Jul 26, 2010, 12:56 pm |
|
Ignored by: 1
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Level 4
Group: Users
Posts: 2,384
Joined: Sep 12, 2006
|
| Lighthouse said: | I have no idea why anyone would call the site in question a "scholar's blog". What is the proof and what exactly are they scholars of?
Furthermore, the way it is written, it looks as if it might be just one person, or at most a couple or three persons. |
It is easier to call the blog scholarly than to remember how to spell it.
|
|
| Posted Jul 26, 2010, 1:26 pm |
|
Ignored by: 1
|
|
|
Lighthouse
Level 1
Group: Members
Posts: 77
Joined: Nov 20, 2009
|
See Sedetrad above:
| Quote: | I have read a scholars blog that critiques it daily. The blog was posted on cathinfo several times for anyone to read. It is quite inciteful. Below is one of them:
|
SJB:
| Quote: |
What about the content? |
Well, my post was not about the content, but if you want my personal opinion, I'd say it is pretty dead-on commentary.
That being the case doesn't make the promulgator(s ) necessarily a scholar or band of scholars. Look, everyone who is strongly committed to the traditional cause knows the "new mass" is pretty weak soup, and also that Fr. Cekada tends to be flippant and, at times, not very professional.
|
|
| Posted Jul 26, 2010, 3:44 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
SJB
Level 3
Group: Members
Posts: 1,748
Joined: Aug 25, 2009
|
So the blog didn't make the claim ... and it offers some "dead-on" commentary. Is that right?
|
.........................
Contra factum non valet illatio
|
| Posted Jul 26, 2010, 4:05 pm |
|
Ignored by: 1
|
|
|
|
|
BrJuniper
Level 1
Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: Mar 1, 2010
|
The SGG Info has been taken down by its owners. Most of the documents are still viewable via web cache.
|
|
| Posted Jul 26, 2010, 11:44 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
Cajetan
Level 1
Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: Jun 17, 2010
|
The real point of the blog is that Cekada's book is not scholarly, erudite, or witty: it's woefully amateurish, full of embarrassing mistakes, and childishly smug. Dolan and Cekada have been hoodwinking good Catholics for too long with their elaborate, though transparent, shell game; it's time to show everyone that the pea really lies hidden in Cekada's cranium, substituting for gray matter.
I don't care if one or 15 people are contributing to the blog. The facts outlined speak for themselves: WHH is just a mess. Cekada's book is just a "definite oops." I think the bloggers would have left Cekada alone if he, and Dolan, and Sanborn hadn't tried to bamboozle the whole traditional world into thinking that WHH is the final word on the problems with the New Mass.
As Lighthouse so perspicaciously suggests, everyone who has dealt with Cekada knows that he's not up to producing anything more than third-rate drivel. We need more than that to combat the Novus Ordo and return lost Catholics to the true faith. Let's consign Cekada to the dust bin of history and look for someone else to carry on the fight. I'm sure that there's some bright, young priest in CMRI or SSPX who can measure up to the task.
|
|
| Posted Jul 26, 2010, 11:44 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
BrJuniper
Level 1
Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: Mar 1, 2010
|
Cajetan,
The writings of Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt for "The Catholic Voice" and other publications are well written as well as scholarly. If he would compile his articles into a book on the Mass and the liturgical reform, it would make Fr. Cekada's look like the amateurish effort it is.
|
|
| Posted Jul 26, 2010, 11:53 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
MyrnaM
Level 3
Group: Members
Posts: 1,163
Joined: May 10, 2010
|
Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt an extremely bright priest.
|
.........................
2 Paralipomenon Chapter 7 Verse 14 And my people, upon whom my name is called, being converted, shall make supplication to me, and seek out my face, and do penance for their most wicked ways; then will I hear from Heaven, and will forgive their sins and heal their land.
|
| Posted Jul 27, 2010, 12:04 am |
|
Ignored by: 4
|
|
|
Cajetan
Level 1
Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: Jun 17, 2010
|
If anyone would like to read a really fine and scholarly theological critique of the early efforts of the liturgical reform that culminated in the Novus Ordo Missae, follow this link: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/07/reform-of-holy-week-in-years-1951-1956.html.
The (translated) article by Fr. Carusi is everything that Cekada's book is NOT: thoughtfully developed paragraphing, admirable organization, probing analysis, judiciously detailed, sober conclusions, fluent, accessible but not slangy, genuinely learned, professionally serious, and in many ways groundbreaking.
It's pathetic to see how Cekada is shamefully trying to promo his worthless book by associating it with the exemplary work of Carusi. I suggest that you go to the Philothea website and read the excerpt from WHH and then immediately go to the Rorate caeli link above. You just need to read four or five paragraphs of Carusi to realize how bad Cekada's book really is.
Honestly. There is simply no comparison. Fr. Carusi's long essay shows us what still can be done on this important subject if a trained scholar and theologian is writing. It is true that Fr. Carusi is not a sedevacantist, so we may not be able to embrace fully his every position. However, he does provide a stellar model for how future studies should be written. Moreover, sedevacantists can cite his work without fear of ridicule as they make their case against the new religion.
Until an able sedevacantist decides to weigh in, we must hope that Fr. Carusi continues his critical analysis of the history of the reforms so that we have something substantial and reliable. In the meantime, we can safely say that Cekada's book is absolutely without value and never give a thought to using it, even for its bibliography. If you bought the book, you might look into returning it for a refund.
|
|
| Posted Jul 29, 2010, 3:30 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Level 4
Group: Users
Posts: 2,384
Joined: Sep 12, 2006
|
| gladius_veritatis said: |
Some who play supporting roles within the operation are not as "loyal" as the Vipers of Vaudeville might think...
. |
Loyalty has a new meaning in certain circles.
|
|
| Posted Aug 6, 2010, 2:09 pm |
|
Ignored by: 1
|
|
|
gladius_veritatis
Level 5
Group: Users
Posts: 5,882
Joined: Aug 25, 2006
|
The Vipers of Vaudeville have a number of "bag men", although not all are equally duped by/enamored of them.
I know that some are already getting rather tired of the weight of whatever is in the bags, so to speak, and some are already making arrangements to find other, more suitable and honorable work.
The whole thing makes me envision a young lad who works for the mafia, not realizing the nefarious nature of his employer's business. The young man grows tired of carrying those heavy suitcases down to the docks in order to dump them in the river, always being told to NEVER look inside. Well, as he starts to get tired, and as he begins to notice a stomach-turning odor emanating from the suitcases, he begins to wonder...
It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall at the HQ of the VoV, as they have little to no idea of what is coming. They do not even know which bag men are tiring and getting smart, or what they are thinking of doing, but I do :)
|
.........................
Eamon Patrick Shea + Vincit veritas
|
| Posted Aug 18, 2010, 11:19 pm |
|
Ignored by: 3
|
|
|
