I know! And Amazon should have better filters so that someone whose review is entitled "Will not purchase" won't be published (lol). And also reviews that complain about how a product got damaged in transit, as if that has anything to do with the product itself. And finally, my favorite: those people who are so confused they think 1 star means best and 5 worst (no kidding, I've seen this too).
Can't wait to read your new book! I'm working through Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness now and will review when I finish. It has been such a rich read so far.
Thank you for sharing the chant library. My church’s Gregorian chant group will be very excited about this.
Thanks, Amelia, I appreciate your uplifting words.
One thing I always loved about Noble Beauty is how the black and white photos came out. I've never done that with any of my other books but would like to get back to it at some point.
Glad to be back reading the blog after a shortish absence. Thanks for the roundup. I was hoping to find an opportunity to segue into recommending a book I dashed off recently; I couldn’t. Nonetheless here you go: Monks and Wine by Desmond Seward. Just a cracking good read if you’re a Catholic, even better if you’re connected to a religious order, and best still if you love your wine on top of that.
The Catholic world (especially the traditional Catholic world) is so small! It was a happy surprise to see Dr. Fimister's name mentioned. He is a wonderfully kind and brilliant man who, incidentally, teaches at my alma mater.
The Amazon review is amusing in its absurdity. How dare we "radical traditional Catholics," as the FBI so lovingly calls us, uphold traditional grammatical rules?!
Thank you for the mention. But, we at The WM Review have never said that there has been a vacancy for 66 years, nor do we hold that. This is the second time recently someone has asserted that, so worth our correcting perhaps.
This is what you published just a couple of days ago:
"The Roman Catholic Church is suffering an unprecedented crisis over the last 60 years or so, which is entirely explainable by the conclusion that the See of Rome has been vacant for that time. As a result of this vacancy, many heretics have been allowed to run riot and present their heresies as the teaching of the Church, without having been condemned or punished by law. This situation will be resolved when the See of Rome is filled."
66 is a specific number, dating back to 1958. Neither I nor the other fellow have made that claim. Personally, I think the arguments against John XXIII are wanting and inconclusive, at least at this stage.
I won't speak for the other fellow but personally I don't feel confident saying anything more than this: Paul VI was not Pope in 1965, for the reason of certain decrees of V2. That's because the sede conclusion is a solution for another problem, a problem which is not clearly present in John XXIII or Paul VI before 1965.
That might seem pedantic or splitting hairs. But, if you or I were to be put in prison for 7 years, we wouldn't consider that a small deal! In addition to time, there is the question of methodology and soundness of argument.
Also, I understand what you are saying about people who seem too certain about things. We are all certain about *some* things of course, so certainty isn't the problem, but that same hesitation is behind the kind of "minimalist sedevacantism" here with dates and in other matters.
Also, I understand what you are saying about people who seem too certain about things. We are all certain about *some* things of course, so certainty isn't the problem, but that same hesitation is behind the kind of "minimalist sedevacantism" here with dates and in other matters.
One final comment here, regarding our article engaging with de Mattei's.
It seems that for many people, the question is what "side" they picked many decades ago, and allowing that to determine the conclusion they're going to draw. But on the contrary, we need to look objectively at how the arguments apply now.
It may be that if those arguments are shown to be sound now, they will also be shown to have been sound for the last 59-60 years or so. But, it might not be, so as far as some can see.
However, to some degree (some!) that's fine. We need agreement on dogma and on the papacy—neither falsely exaggerated nor falsely minimised—and we need sufficient consensus to act today, but it doesn't follow we need full consensus about everything that people think is on "the sede platform." After all, many at the Council of Constance didn't agree factually or even doctrinally on what it was they were doing in electing Martin V, nor on who the true popes had been during the Great Western Schism. The important point is that they were able to act to resolve the problem.
Many of the disputed matters will be resolved when we have that, a true Roman Pontiff reigning as the Roman Pontiff. And however you choose to understand the situation, we can agree that we don't have that, I think.
This is why I think minimalism in our claims, conclusion and applications thereof in the crisis is necessary, as is building cordial relationships and lines of communication both with those who agree with us and those who don't.
The reason that person won't buy your books ---- my, what a world we live in! 🤣🤣🤣
I know! And Amazon should have better filters so that someone whose review is entitled "Will not purchase" won't be published (lol). And also reviews that complain about how a product got damaged in transit, as if that has anything to do with the product itself. And finally, my favorite: those people who are so confused they think 1 star means best and 5 worst (no kidding, I've seen this too).
They really should have a better system. It's funny everything you can encounter just buying on Amazon!
By the way, thank you for opening up the comments section again!
I only limited it for the dancing articles.
Oh, I understand. The comments on the first one were a doozy!
Can't wait to read your new book! I'm working through Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness now and will review when I finish. It has been such a rich read so far.
Thank you for sharing the chant library. My church’s Gregorian chant group will be very excited about this.
Thanks, Amelia, I appreciate your uplifting words.
One thing I always loved about Noble Beauty is how the black and white photos came out. I've never done that with any of my other books but would like to get back to it at some point.
God bless!
Glad to be back reading the blog after a shortish absence. Thanks for the roundup. I was hoping to find an opportunity to segue into recommending a book I dashed off recently; I couldn’t. Nonetheless here you go: Monks and Wine by Desmond Seward. Just a cracking good read if you’re a Catholic, even better if you’re connected to a religious order, and best still if you love your wine on top of that.
Many thanks for all your hard work! Just one typo correction: 'Thomas Strock' should of course be 'Thomas Storck'.
That's what comes of trying to do too much, too fast!
The Catholic world (especially the traditional Catholic world) is so small! It was a happy surprise to see Dr. Fimister's name mentioned. He is a wonderfully kind and brilliant man who, incidentally, teaches at my alma mater.
The Amazon review is amusing in its absurdity. How dare we "radical traditional Catholics," as the FBI so lovingly calls us, uphold traditional grammatical rules?!
Thank you for the mention. But, we at The WM Review have never said that there has been a vacancy for 66 years, nor do we hold that. This is the second time recently someone has asserted that, so worth our correcting perhaps.
This is what you published just a couple of days ago:
"The Roman Catholic Church is suffering an unprecedented crisis over the last 60 years or so, which is entirely explainable by the conclusion that the See of Rome has been vacant for that time. As a result of this vacancy, many heretics have been allowed to run riot and present their heresies as the teaching of the Church, without having been condemned or punished by law. This situation will be resolved when the See of Rome is filled."
https://www.wmreview.org/p/parsons-orthodoxy-i
Am I missing something?
66 is a specific number, dating back to 1958. Neither I nor the other fellow have made that claim. Personally, I think the arguments against John XXIII are wanting and inconclusive, at least at this stage.
I won't speak for the other fellow but personally I don't feel confident saying anything more than this: Paul VI was not Pope in 1965, for the reason of certain decrees of V2. That's because the sede conclusion is a solution for another problem, a problem which is not clearly present in John XXIII or Paul VI before 1965.
That might seem pedantic or splitting hairs. But, if you or I were to be put in prison for 7 years, we wouldn't consider that a small deal! In addition to time, there is the question of methodology and soundness of argument.
Thanks for the opportunity to clarify though.
Thank you for clarifying your position. I see now why you wrote "last 60 years or so."
Also, I understand what you are saying about people who seem too certain about things. We are all certain about *some* things of course, so certainty isn't the problem, but that same hesitation is behind the kind of "minimalist sedevacantism" here with dates and in other matters.
Also, I understand what you are saying about people who seem too certain about things. We are all certain about *some* things of course, so certainty isn't the problem, but that same hesitation is behind the kind of "minimalist sedevacantism" here with dates and in other matters.
One final comment here, regarding our article engaging with de Mattei's.
It seems that for many people, the question is what "side" they picked many decades ago, and allowing that to determine the conclusion they're going to draw. But on the contrary, we need to look objectively at how the arguments apply now.
It may be that if those arguments are shown to be sound now, they will also be shown to have been sound for the last 59-60 years or so. But, it might not be, so as far as some can see.
However, to some degree (some!) that's fine. We need agreement on dogma and on the papacy—neither falsely exaggerated nor falsely minimised—and we need sufficient consensus to act today, but it doesn't follow we need full consensus about everything that people think is on "the sede platform." After all, many at the Council of Constance didn't agree factually or even doctrinally on what it was they were doing in electing Martin V, nor on who the true popes had been during the Great Western Schism. The important point is that they were able to act to resolve the problem.
Many of the disputed matters will be resolved when we have that, a true Roman Pontiff reigning as the Roman Pontiff. And however you choose to understand the situation, we can agree that we don't have that, I think.
This is why I think minimalism in our claims, conclusion and applications thereof in the crisis is necessary, as is building cordial relationships and lines of communication both with those who agree with us and those who don't.
Also, we didn't do the poking. The holes were already there, in abundance. We merely pointed a few of them out!