I'm a practicing Lutheran of a conservative bent. That being said, I have nothing but profound respect for the institution of the Catholic Church. We are all under attack, fore and aft, and my heart goes out to all men and women of good faith, struggling in these insane times. Ironically, I take more comfort from Catholic writers and thinkers like Augustine, Eckhart and Gerard Manley Hopkins, than any Protestant types I can think of. Just sayin...
I got one for you related to the council. Similar to telling people in formation about marriage being allowed for priests, my mother said that in the 60's when the pill came out and people asked the priests about it, basically, they told them probably it's okay, it's a new thing, we think they will approve it.....
@@thekalezelden I really think that is how contraception got a foothold. The way it was explained to me is that people were rely put off by the way it was handled. I mean THEY ASKED and were told one thing and then, in the end they were "told" the opposite. I mean how is it "okay" yesterday and not "today" is what people thought. Sadly it changed the dynamics of society in bad ways, family size was integral and that influenced housing, jobs, spending, schools, vocations, and on and on. I really do think that the way it was handled is something important that has never been given any opportunity for airing. And I might add, the complete destruction of the mass was an insult to lay Catholic norms and sensibilities. They have NEVER admitted the loss of souls from the games they played with the mass, and indeed, still play. THAT is why people want or go to the old mass, it's not toy to play with, it's not one flavor here and another flavor there. I was there to see it. The mass was just decimated. HOW could such radical changes NOT hurt the people? It did and still does, and NOW they war on the poor buggers who want to go to the Latin mass. It's nuts.
I wonder if these older priests - who seemed to miss fostering a rich spirituality that would encourage heroic vocations within the Church - were products of a Tridentine rigidity that cried out for a more healthy, human spirituality. Were they reacting?
Can someone help me out here. In this passage I'm struggling to find the bit about the right liturgy. And there's no mention of institutional church it seems... 31 When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ 41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ 44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Because you’re assuming ‘sola scriptura’… the Church began without a Bible. It existed for nearly three centuries before the Church, through her divine authority from Christ codified the Bible. You cite scripture as if it dropped from the sky directly from God. It didn’t. The Bible is not a neutral battlefield by which Catholics and Protestants can argue and debate and interpret. It’s our book. We created it. It’s a liturgical book that belongs and lives in the framework of the Mass. The Catholic Church does NOT have the burden of proof. You do. YOU have to prove your case against us. Not the other way around. Sorry not sorry. The early Church was not a ‘biblical’ Christianity, it was SACRAMENTAL. Who do you think Paul was speaking to in his letters? He speaking to Christian communities already existing. The didn’t have Bibles. They shared the Good News and came together at the Mass as a sacramental community to partake in Holy Communion. They baptized babies and adults, etc, etc.. The Bible doesn’t say anything about scripture alone or faith alone. Protestantism is merely prideful sin in wanting to be god-like in forming one’s own personal church in one’s own self image.
A prophetic vision for Catholicism is recognizing the eternal Triune God. One that didn't just have relationships as an addendum to His individuality but one that Is relationship. Is love.
At 35:15 Chapp seems to fall directly into the caricatures that were just being exposed. Kale is not using terms like "hyper-object" or "spirit" or "myth" in a negative sense. His point is that doing things like reducing the Council to the documents is naive. Kale always has interesting thoughts on these topics.
I fell into no caricature. And Kale was dealing with the progressive application of the Council as some vague spirit negatively. But his point is that this is what happens when an event becomes a hyper object. Its actual documents become pointless. I am simply pushing back on that a bit and pointing out that the only thing left to us really are just the documents and their meaning. 500 years from now that is all the council will be to future Catholics. What was written. Our current fevered debates will be long forgotten. The council will cease to be a hyper object. Therefore, the best service we can give to the church and her future is to document the documents. Kale is right … for now this is pointless. But my claim is that it is not pointless in the long run. Very few Catholics have even the faintest idea what went on during and after Nicea. But every Sunday they recite that creed.
@@gaudiumetspes22dr.larrycha26 Hello Dr. Chapp and thanks for your thoughts. We certainly disagree that Kale was using "spirit" and "hyper-object" negatively. I think he responded to you by pointing out Luther's "solas" in order to highlight a parallel reduction (i.e. reducing the Council to the documents is like reducing the faith to the solas). Of course you then countered and on it goes... Still, I think this debate about the significance of the "spirit of Vatican II" is a substantial one, well worth having. Regarding Nicea, we do think of it in terms of creed and documents, but it does not follow that the "spirit" of Nicea was inconsequential, or that in the wake of Nicea it was better to focus on the documents than the "spirit." After all, the documents of Nicea were much less widely propagated than the documents of Vatican II, and most of the bishops were implementing Nicea from their _memory_ of the council. In reality we possess only partial documentation from many of the councils, and we trust that the "spirit" of those councils had their salutary effect even if many of the documents were lost.
The word Pastoral is nothing more than Modernism and triggers me unlike any other word out of the council. Its meaning is so subjective and wishy-washy that it can never be dogmatic. It smacks of moral relativism, i.e. anything goes if your ill-formed conscience says that your objective mortal sin is not a sin in your particular situation. Pastoralism should be declared another heresy some day.
Bravissimo! Particularly with regard to the latter part of the conversation--Covid and the Military Industrial Complex. Subscribe. Subscribe. Subscribe. 🙂
The tilt toward 'becoming' rather than 'being' has been a tragedy for Holy Mother Church - in other words our culture has replaced the symbol - the sacraments - with the image. In hoc signo vinces +.
Isn't calling actual people Boomers depersonalisation and dehumanisation. Why fall into the secular divisive language trap, of hating of outgroups and scapegoating vulnerable cohorts..?
Hi. So I was a teenager when the changes happened in the 60's 70's. I did not mind the changes in the novus ordo. It's great that academics talk all the time about the great vactican 2 documents. The aftermath was a total disaster. Now how could these great minds great make such huge mistakes?
Can Larry Chapp, for once, not caricature trads? “They only read Garrigou-Lagrange, only TLM”. This is a lie and a caricature, and ultimately a failure to actually engage reality as it exists on the ground. You’re worse than the trads about caricaturing the other side of the argument.
In the interview it is clear in context I am talking about a certain kind of trad. The Vatican II rejecting, every pope since then rejecting, kind of trad. The scorched earth trad. And they do exist and in large numbers. I am not offering a caricature at all. I have met and interacted with hundreds of such people. They exist and are very vocal. Unless you are claiming to speak for all trads then I would submit to you that my encounters with trads are just as valid as yours. I hear from them all the time. I like them. Good people. Serious Catholics. I have many friends who think like this. We laugh and poke fun at each other. But I disagree with their approach.
@gaudiumetspes22dr.larrycha26 no, it is not clear from the context, because you don’t put any qualifier on ‘trad’. If I or any other trad would make a similar comment about ‘Vatican II folks’ you would be quite offended, as I’ve seen you quite often are, only to later offer a qualifier when challenged. Fully granted, I don’t represent all trads, but I’ve lived across several continents and have been an active participant in a lot of trad parishes and online groups etc. So I think my perspective does offer something you probably haven’t seen . A lot of trad laypeople aren’t even reading ANY theology, let alone St Thomas Aquinas. So far as the academic theological guild is concerned, you should really still worry more about the Conciliun folks rather than the trads, who have barely made a dint in the academic guild (to be fair, you do concede the fact of Concilium doninance of academic theology). I’m doing my best out there trying to dissuade any trad friends of mine from falling into Vatican II-bashing, and I’d think that the process would be easier if that effort was reciprocated by someone with a youtube platform who speaks for another position.
plus I don’t quite get your problem with people not wanting to read Balthasar. It seems quite clear you don’t really enjoy reading Thomists. (neither do I, to be perfectly frank.) Preference for me, not for thee? Not to mention the fact that any ‘Thomism-only’ perception is greatly blown up by the vocal few, mostly without institutional power or authority. Institutionally this is an inverted view of reality. How many seminary professors have studied/are teaching Balthasar vs how many are teaching/studying Garrigou Lagrange? The answer is pretty clear. Even in the Dominican order itself, I’ll say there are more who aren’t doing Thomistic theology than ones who are.
I have zero issue with anyone not reading Balthasar. None. Nada. What I have an issue with are trads who haven’t read a word of him and yet criticize what they surmise are his views based off of some talking points on social media. Please stop taking my words out of context and then misrepresenting them. You make it sound as if I am angry not enough people are reading Balthasar. I did not say that. Nor did I imply it. I just have little patience for armchair “experts” on Balthasar who haven’t read a word of him.
I’m not trying to misrepresent you (at least not self-consciously). But it comes across that way. But all of this aside, I should really thank you for this conversation. The idea of the ‘hyper-object’ really captures well where my thoughts are re: Vatican II, and expresses it in a much more elegant and cogent way. I also thank you for responding not once, but twice! Despite being a cranky trad, I am not hostile to the Communio/nouvelle theologie at all (in fact, I love the works of Ratzinger and Bouyer).
Amazing that these two spent 85 minutes without evaluating vii relative the salvation of souls, and in that I think vii has not done well at all by any objective measure (for whatever reason, we are asking priests to bless sin). Time to go back to tradition and be a church that can change the world, not the opposite. Vii destroyed vocations, destroyed mass attendance, turned the church more worldly and that is not a good thing at all. These two, but particularly Mr Chapp, are too invested to just say “scrap it.” Mr. Clapp is trad passive aggressive in his bloviating. Beyond that “two kinds of turds” except one abolished abolition…. These two are too intelectual that is why channel has no subscribers.
TLM-loving trad who loved this conversation and loves every time Kale is on.
I'm a practicing Lutheran of a conservative bent. That being said, I have nothing but profound respect for the institution of the Catholic Church. We are all under attack, fore and aft, and my heart goes out to all men and women of good faith, struggling in these insane times. Ironically, I take more comfort from Catholic writers and thinkers like Augustine, Eckhart and Gerard Manley Hopkins, than any Protestant types I can think of.
Just sayin...
Come back home… reconcile yourself… partake of TRUE Holy Communion… we need you.
This is really one of Dr. Chapp’s best podcasts to date 👍🏻🇻🇦
I got one for you related to the council. Similar to telling people in formation about marriage being allowed for priests, my mother said that in the 60's when the pill came out and people asked the priests about it, basically, they told them probably it's okay, it's a new thing, we think they will approve it.....
My mom and dad got married in the summer of '68. The priests told them the exact same thing.
@@thekalezelden I really think that is how contraception got a foothold. The way it was explained to me is that people were rely put off by the way it was handled. I mean THEY ASKED and were told one thing and then, in the end they were "told" the opposite.
I mean how is it "okay" yesterday and not "today" is what people thought.
Sadly it changed the dynamics of society in bad ways, family size was integral and that influenced housing, jobs, spending, schools, vocations, and on and on.
I really do think that the way it was handled is something important that has never been given any opportunity for airing. And I might add, the complete destruction of the mass was an insult to lay Catholic norms and sensibilities. They have NEVER admitted the loss of souls from the games they played with the mass, and indeed, still play. THAT is why people want or go to the old mass, it's not toy to play with, it's not one flavor here and another flavor there.
I was there to see it. The mass was just decimated. HOW could such radical changes NOT hurt the people? It did and still does, and NOW they war on the poor buggers who want to go to the Latin mass. It's nuts.
Uncle Kale!!
Tayo!
“Because they’re stupid.” 🤣🤣🤣🤣
But who honestly believes that Orthodoxy has NO abuse issues???! Really?
The Catholic version of Lennon & McCartney!!! Is there anyway both of can provide desert island book recommendations? Happy Ascension!!! 🙏🙏🙏
I wonder if these older priests - who seemed to miss fostering a rich spirituality that would encourage heroic vocations within the Church - were products of a Tridentine rigidity that cried out for a more healthy, human spirituality. Were they reacting?
That question is answered in Benedict's same Christmas address (1:10:09)
Larry you don't have PayPal? It would make it easier for some of us old men to donate.
Can someone help me out here. In this passage I'm struggling to find the bit about the right liturgy. And there's no mention of institutional church it seems...
31 When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Because you’re assuming ‘sola scriptura’… the Church began without a Bible. It existed for nearly three centuries before the Church, through her divine authority from Christ codified the Bible. You cite scripture as if it dropped from the sky directly from God. It didn’t. The Bible is not a neutral battlefield by which Catholics and Protestants can argue and debate and interpret. It’s our book. We created it. It’s a liturgical book that belongs and lives in the framework of the Mass. The Catholic Church does NOT have the burden of proof. You do. YOU have to prove your case against us. Not the other way around. Sorry not sorry. The early Church was not a ‘biblical’ Christianity, it was SACRAMENTAL. Who do you think Paul was speaking to in his letters? He speaking to Christian communities already existing. The didn’t have Bibles. They shared the Good News and came together at the Mass as a sacramental community to partake in Holy Communion. They baptized babies and adults, etc, etc.. The Bible doesn’t say anything about scripture alone or faith alone. Protestantism is merely prideful sin in wanting to be god-like in forming one’s own personal church in one’s own self image.
A prophetic vision for Catholicism is recognizing the eternal Triune God. One that didn't just have relationships as an addendum to His individuality but one that Is relationship. Is love.
Ratzinger: "loss of faith" (52:03)
At 35:15 Chapp seems to fall directly into the caricatures that were just being exposed. Kale is not using terms like "hyper-object" or "spirit" or "myth" in a negative sense. His point is that doing things like reducing the Council to the documents is naive. Kale always has interesting thoughts on these topics.
I fell into no caricature. And Kale was dealing with the progressive application of the Council as some vague spirit negatively. But his point is that this is what happens when an event becomes a hyper object. Its actual documents become pointless. I am simply pushing back on that a bit and pointing out that the only thing left to us really are just the documents and their meaning. 500 years from now that is all the council will be to future Catholics. What was written. Our current fevered debates will be long forgotten. The council will cease to be a hyper object. Therefore, the best service we can give to the church and her future is to document the documents. Kale is right … for now this is pointless. But my claim is that it is not pointless in the long run. Very few Catholics have even the faintest idea what went on during and after Nicea. But every Sunday they recite that creed.
@@gaudiumetspes22dr.larrycha26 Hello Dr. Chapp and thanks for your thoughts. We certainly disagree that Kale was using "spirit" and "hyper-object" negatively. I think he responded to you by pointing out Luther's "solas" in order to highlight a parallel reduction (i.e. reducing the Council to the documents is like reducing the faith to the solas). Of course you then countered and on it goes... Still, I think this debate about the significance of the "spirit of Vatican II" is a substantial one, well worth having.
Regarding Nicea, we do think of it in terms of creed and documents, but it does not follow that the "spirit" of Nicea was inconsequential, or that in the wake of Nicea it was better to focus on the documents than the "spirit." After all, the documents of Nicea were much less widely propagated than the documents of Vatican II, and most of the bishops were implementing Nicea from their _memory_ of the council. In reality we possess only partial documentation from many of the councils, and we trust that the "spirit" of those councils had their salutary effect even if many of the documents were lost.
The word Pastoral is nothing more than Modernism and triggers me unlike any other word out of the council. Its meaning is so subjective and wishy-washy that it can never be dogmatic. It smacks of moral relativism, i.e. anything goes if your ill-formed conscience says that your objective mortal sin is not a sin in your particular situation. Pastoralism should be declared another heresy some day.
At this point, you're both arguing against Ratzinger's position. . . (32:22)
Bravissimo! Particularly with regard to the latter part of the conversation--Covid and the Military Industrial Complex. Subscribe. Subscribe. Subscribe. 🙂
Don't forget the lawfare attacking DJT. It's a thing.
The tilt toward 'becoming' rather than 'being' has been a tragedy for Holy Mother Church - in other words our culture has replaced the symbol - the sacraments - with the image. In hoc signo vinces +.
I wonder how all the boomers are going to feel when their grandchildren pray them out of purgatory in Latin?
Isn't calling actual people Boomers depersonalisation and dehumanisation. Why fall into the secular divisive language trap, of hating of outgroups and scapegoating vulnerable cohorts..?
mythos = narrative (33:40)
Hi. So I was a teenager when the changes happened in the 60's 70's. I did not mind the changes in the novus ordo. It's great that academics talk all the time about the great vactican 2 documents. The aftermath was a total disaster. Now how could these great minds great make such huge mistakes?
Wanting to be down with the kids
Can Larry Chapp, for once, not caricature trads? “They only read Garrigou-Lagrange, only TLM”. This is a lie and a caricature, and ultimately a failure to actually engage reality as it exists on the ground. You’re worse than the trads about caricaturing the other side of the argument.
In the interview it is clear in context I am talking about a certain kind of trad. The Vatican II rejecting, every pope since then rejecting, kind of trad. The scorched earth trad. And they do exist and in large numbers. I am not offering a caricature at all. I have met and interacted with hundreds of such people. They exist and are very vocal. Unless you are claiming to speak for all trads then I would submit to you that my encounters with trads are just as valid as yours. I hear from them all the time. I like them. Good people. Serious Catholics. I have many friends who think like this. We laugh and poke fun at each other. But I disagree with their approach.
@gaudiumetspes22dr.larrycha26 no, it is not clear from the context, because you don’t put any qualifier on ‘trad’. If I or any other trad would make a similar comment about ‘Vatican II folks’ you would be quite offended, as I’ve seen you quite often are, only to later offer a qualifier when challenged. Fully granted, I don’t represent all trads, but I’ve lived across several continents and have been an active participant in a lot of trad parishes and online groups etc. So I think my perspective does offer something you probably haven’t seen . A lot of trad laypeople aren’t even reading ANY theology, let alone St Thomas Aquinas. So far as the academic theological guild is concerned, you should really still worry more about the Conciliun folks rather than the trads, who have barely made a dint in the academic guild (to be fair, you do concede the fact of Concilium doninance of academic theology). I’m doing my best out there trying to dissuade any trad friends of mine from falling into Vatican II-bashing, and I’d think that the process would be easier if that effort was reciprocated by someone with a youtube platform who speaks for another position.
plus I don’t quite get your problem with people not wanting to read Balthasar. It seems quite clear you don’t really enjoy reading Thomists. (neither do I, to be perfectly frank.) Preference for me, not for thee? Not to mention the fact that any ‘Thomism-only’ perception is greatly blown up by the vocal few, mostly without institutional power or authority. Institutionally this is an inverted view of reality. How many seminary professors have studied/are teaching Balthasar vs how many are teaching/studying Garrigou Lagrange? The answer is pretty clear. Even in the Dominican order itself, I’ll say there are more who aren’t doing Thomistic theology than ones who are.
I have zero issue with anyone not reading Balthasar. None. Nada. What I have an issue with are trads who haven’t read a word of him and yet criticize what they surmise are his views based off of some talking points on social media. Please stop taking my words out of context and then misrepresenting them. You make it sound as if I am angry not enough people are reading Balthasar. I did not say that. Nor did I imply it. I just have little patience for armchair “experts” on Balthasar who haven’t read a word of him.
I’m not trying to misrepresent you (at least not self-consciously). But it comes across that way.
But all of this aside, I should really thank you for this conversation. The idea of the ‘hyper-object’ really captures well where my thoughts are re: Vatican II, and expresses it in a much more elegant and cogent way. I also thank you for responding not once, but twice! Despite being a cranky trad, I am not hostile to the Communio/nouvelle theologie at all (in fact, I love the works of Ratzinger and Bouyer).
Amazing that these two spent 85 minutes without evaluating vii relative the salvation of souls, and in that I think vii has not done well at all by any objective measure (for whatever reason, we are asking priests to bless sin). Time to go back to tradition and be a church that can change the world, not the opposite. Vii destroyed vocations, destroyed mass attendance, turned the church more worldly and that is not a good thing at all. These two, but particularly Mr Chapp, are too invested to just say “scrap it.” Mr. Clapp is trad passive aggressive in his bloviating. Beyond that “two kinds of turds” except one abolished abolition…. These two are too intelectual that is why channel has no subscribers.