Ah, the dreaded OCP Breaking Bread…it comes round my church like clockwork every Advent. We used to sing Jernberg’s Mass of St Philip Neri too…loved it singing all voices and rounding things off with Jernberg’s Salve Regina. But a new church, and now it’s gone. Back to the OCP grind and time to wear earplugs…. Thank you, Dr K ~ you always do a great job pulling the most important pieces for us to see, read, or listen to. I really appreciate your time in this way. Like Greg says, it saves us a lot of time.
Just finished that David Betz interview. Wow, though I’m not surprised by the conclusions, unfortunately. Sent a link to my concerned best friend in UK. Thank you!
There is a YouTuber acquaintance of Timothy Flanders called Jeremiah Bannister who produced a lengthy analytical series on Knox's Enthusiasm. It was there I first heard about this book, and subsequently read along till completion. Mr Bannister's own experience of doing the rounds of charismania certainly added meat to meat of Knox's exposition. No connection.
Sadly, Bannister also applies Knox's analysis to traditionalists, whom he thinks fit the definition perfectly. As I mentioned in this post, I think there are points of resemblance but overall the presentation does not fit.
Yes, that is true, and although I had quite forgotten this, I do now recall JB's criticism towards 'trads', but may have indeed been lost in what was at the time quite an eclectic bunch of commentators on TF's Meaning of Catholic, who in his indomitable charity hosted a few - critical towards trads - Catholic Youtubers.
Still, JB's own experience of emotional headbanging, was interesting in itself.
Other than that, of Knox's volume, the chapters on Jansenism and Quietism were the most interesting to me, insofar that they highlighted the absolute chasm in attitude from each other, yet both for a time held a following within the Church. And the Church recovered. Hope for us yet.
I have long had both a hardback and paperback version of Knox’s excellent work, but only read it a decade ago. I too found pesky the long untranslated French passages. For those considering a purchase of Cluny Media’s new edition, I believe it is substantially less expensive than even the current untranslated paperback version. It is a serious work likely best read daily in “bite-sized” portions, and it will be money well spent.
Your end-o-week digest is useful for me because I have drastically cut back on the sites I visit. (It's a Lenten thing, but might become permanent.) The story from Regis Martin reminds me of a somewhat forgotten book of old: God Goes to Murderer's Row by Fr. M. Raymond (Flanagan) from Gethsemani Abbey. (I think he and Merton served as foils for each other.) I watched the Lepanto video on GIA and OCP. Oh my! At my territorial parish the former pastor had finally gotten away from the OCP missalettes, and I had introduced the organist to Jernberg's Mass of St. Philip Neri. Musically, things were looking up. But then a new pastor came in --of the loosey-goosey generation--and voila, the resurgence of OCP. Finally, NOW Cluny puts out the Knox book, when I, like you, had to struggle through the French. Well, c'est la vie!
You know, my hope is that this roundup can give other people the opportunity to stop reading all over the place and trust that my list will be a pretty decent one. I slog through a lot so that others don't have to, and try to offer enough commentary to make it easy to see whether the piece will be of interest to a given reader or not.
So on Francis being infallibly the pope, Placidus argues:
1) Obviously Francis is a heretic.
2) But the bishops haven't noticed or said anything about it.
3) Therefore the bishops have infallibly taught that Francis is the pope.
4) Therefore Francis is the pope.
5) But popes can't be notorious heretics.
6) Therefore Francis can't be a 'notorious' heretic (so he's apparently just 'quite well-known as' a public heretic, so we should treat his pronouncements as infallibly authoritative, even if they are obviously heretical, because papal heresy is binding on the faithful provided it is not 'notorious').
Your step 6) is ludicous. No one has ever said the pronouncements of the ordinary papal magisterium are "infallibly authoritative." Time to go back to ecclesiology 101.
I think there are a number of dubious premises and inferences in the argument. What do you think is particularly ludicrous about step 6? (You will have noticed that 'step 6' is a bit complex, I'd appreciate your spelling out what exactly you take issue with, how you'd amend it, in light of Placidus's theory of (the) 'dogmatic facts' (both in general and in particular), instead of being so airily and discourteously dismissive.) Do you really think it is the only (or the most) ludicrous 'step,' or that what you have singled out is the only ludicrous thing about it? And do you really not see any grounds for it in Placidus's argument? (Maybe try? I can (fallibly! I admit) adduce such grounds if you need me to.)
Ah, the dreaded OCP Breaking Bread…it comes round my church like clockwork every Advent. We used to sing Jernberg’s Mass of St Philip Neri too…loved it singing all voices and rounding things off with Jernberg’s Salve Regina. But a new church, and now it’s gone. Back to the OCP grind and time to wear earplugs…. Thank you, Dr K ~ you always do a great job pulling the most important pieces for us to see, read, or listen to. I really appreciate your time in this way. Like Greg says, it saves us a lot of time.
Just finished that David Betz interview. Wow, though I’m not surprised by the conclusions, unfortunately. Sent a link to my concerned best friend in UK. Thank you!
It's too plausible to write it off, right?
There is a YouTuber acquaintance of Timothy Flanders called Jeremiah Bannister who produced a lengthy analytical series on Knox's Enthusiasm. It was there I first heard about this book, and subsequently read along till completion. Mr Bannister's own experience of doing the rounds of charismania certainly added meat to meat of Knox's exposition. No connection.
Sadly, Bannister also applies Knox's analysis to traditionalists, whom he thinks fit the definition perfectly. As I mentioned in this post, I think there are points of resemblance but overall the presentation does not fit.
Yes, that is true, and although I had quite forgotten this, I do now recall JB's criticism towards 'trads', but may have indeed been lost in what was at the time quite an eclectic bunch of commentators on TF's Meaning of Catholic, who in his indomitable charity hosted a few - critical towards trads - Catholic Youtubers.
Still, JB's own experience of emotional headbanging, was interesting in itself.
Other than that, of Knox's volume, the chapters on Jansenism and Quietism were the most interesting to me, insofar that they highlighted the absolute chasm in attitude from each other, yet both for a time held a following within the Church. And the Church recovered. Hope for us yet.
I have long had both a hardback and paperback version of Knox’s excellent work, but only read it a decade ago. I too found pesky the long untranslated French passages. For those considering a purchase of Cluny Media’s new edition, I believe it is substantially less expensive than even the current untranslated paperback version. It is a serious work likely best read daily in “bite-sized” portions, and it will be money well spent.
Your end-o-week digest is useful for me because I have drastically cut back on the sites I visit. (It's a Lenten thing, but might become permanent.) The story from Regis Martin reminds me of a somewhat forgotten book of old: God Goes to Murderer's Row by Fr. M. Raymond (Flanagan) from Gethsemani Abbey. (I think he and Merton served as foils for each other.) I watched the Lepanto video on GIA and OCP. Oh my! At my territorial parish the former pastor had finally gotten away from the OCP missalettes, and I had introduced the organist to Jernberg's Mass of St. Philip Neri. Musically, things were looking up. But then a new pastor came in --of the loosey-goosey generation--and voila, the resurgence of OCP. Finally, NOW Cluny puts out the Knox book, when I, like you, had to struggle through the French. Well, c'est la vie!
You know, my hope is that this roundup can give other people the opportunity to stop reading all over the place and trust that my list will be a pretty decent one. I slog through a lot so that others don't have to, and try to offer enough commentary to make it easy to see whether the piece will be of interest to a given reader or not.
In my opinion you have succeeded. Thank you.
So on Francis being infallibly the pope, Placidus argues:
1) Obviously Francis is a heretic.
2) But the bishops haven't noticed or said anything about it.
3) Therefore the bishops have infallibly taught that Francis is the pope.
4) Therefore Francis is the pope.
5) But popes can't be notorious heretics.
6) Therefore Francis can't be a 'notorious' heretic (so he's apparently just 'quite well-known as' a public heretic, so we should treat his pronouncements as infallibly authoritative, even if they are obviously heretical, because papal heresy is binding on the faithful provided it is not 'notorious').
Your step 6) is ludicous. No one has ever said the pronouncements of the ordinary papal magisterium are "infallibly authoritative." Time to go back to ecclesiology 101.
I think there are a number of dubious premises and inferences in the argument. What do you think is particularly ludicrous about step 6? (You will have noticed that 'step 6' is a bit complex, I'd appreciate your spelling out what exactly you take issue with, how you'd amend it, in light of Placidus's theory of (the) 'dogmatic facts' (both in general and in particular), instead of being so airily and discourteously dismissive.) Do you really think it is the only (or the most) ludicrous 'step,' or that what you have singled out is the only ludicrous thing about it? And do you really not see any grounds for it in Placidus's argument? (Maybe try? I can (fallibly! I admit) adduce such grounds if you need me to.)
Thank you for this edition. I am particularly grateful for the featuring of the Magnificat. I am adding to my to-be-performed wish list.