McGilchrist’s follow-up magnum opus: ‘The matter with things: our brains, our delusions, and the unmaking of the world’ culminates in an exposition of the sacred. Highly recommended!
It struck me many times while reading Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton, that he had intuited many of the same things that Ian Mcgilchrist has arrvied at through scientific inquiry. I was pleasantly surprised to see Ian directly quote Chesterton in his latest book!
Good chat. I don't necessarily agree with the idea of punishing those alleged of crimes before they are found guilty, but given that this is the norm in the Church the policy should also apply to Rupnik.
Asking an honest question/posting honest commentary: If there isn't a "single Roman Rite" then what was the point of Quo Primum? From my reading it was intended to consolidate the myriad of liturgical abuses happening in the Roman Church into a more consistent liturgy to be said across the board (while retaining other rites of antiquity that could prove their pedigree e.g. Carmelite, Dominican etc.) The 1962 missal is arguably the best artifact we have of such a liturgy asked for and prescribed for the Roman Church by Pope St. Pius V. The Pauline Mass given us after the Council can be proven time and time again to be a rupture in the liturgical tradition; while it and its associated sacraments are indeed valid they are definitely not "traditional". Even the Ordinariate's "Divine Worship" seems odd to me as it was seemingly whipped up as a solution for High Church Protestants returning to the Church. I too admire and enjoy their liturgies but I can't help but get a funny feeling when I see their Lex Orandi built upon Cramner's Book of Common Prayer. If we want a liturgy with English tradition and patrimony, why not the Roman Rite or Sarum Use thereof that nurtured the English Church for centuries? There must be a single Roman Rite as there must be a single "Byzantine Rite" or other Apostolic rites of the Catholic Church. Such liturgical integrity and universality adds to the very Catholic nature of the Church.
Thank you for a fair and well explained overview of this book, it is a very detailed, incredibly interesting, important work. After all, this book, not counting notes, has a 58 page bibliography, some 1850 +/- references.
D.C. Schindler & Ian Mcgilchrist were hosted in conversation on a small UA-cam channel called The Meaning Code, if anyone is interested. For myself, that was a meeting of two very formative figures, which went exceedingly well.
1. Good Catholic art, particularly film and music, will solve a lot of problems, I think. It will create that right-brained "big picture". But it also has to start where people are at and then draw them in from there. 2. I typically attend the Latin Mass, but have no problems attending a well-said Novus Ordo, and have attended the Ukranian-Byzantine Rite a couple of times. My problem is not with the LM itself, but rather with people who hijack it to serve their insecure egotistic need for superiority and play act like they are from the Middle Ages. I know many wonderful people who attend the Latin Mass, and also some neo-psychotic people who attend it. At the end of the day, they're all flawed human beings. Novus Ordo people, on the other hand, often seem to have a big problem with worldliness (the majority, not the small percentage who attend all the conferences and listen to Catholic radio regularly). 3. I, too, wanted to think the best of Pope Francis. I thought he wanted to reach out to the lost, something that many people didn't seem to want to do. Now, I'm sure he wants to *become* one of the lost...
This is why I’m not catholic. The first half of your conversation makes the church seem appealing on a metaphysical large scale level. Like it has something to offer that is transcendental. But then when I see evil men like rupnik zanchetta and mcareick and maciel rise to the top I’m reminded why I am glad I left. The Soviet Union had a structure where evil men like Beria and Stalin could rise up. How is the Curia or Vatican different?
I don't agree with the comment about Von Balthasar and beauty. Nazism had beauty...Hugo Boss, paraphernalia and architecture. Even their armaments had beauty...but the ideology was evil. The Soviets had some beauty in terms of architecture, music and art but was evil. Evil can be very beautiful and the evil one is an angel of light Aesthetics and sensuality can either serve good or evil.
I like Copland but not as much as Shostakovich and Prokofiev. If the USSR were around they'd still be pumping out symphonies and the US would renew support for the arts in the distinctive sense of spite that was our cold war policy.
I think the comment was made with the implicit assumption that beauty, goodness & truth all ultimately find their home in God. Not that beauty cannot be used for evil, or that truth can't be wielded like a knife, but that when that happens they are divorced from their ultimate source, and are fallen, evil, false, etc.
I go with the science when I go the doctor or drive. The balance being sought is not children at school vs a particular virus but children at school against death at a not unreasonable level of probability.
Science does not make choices for us, and we should not pretend it does. A policymaker's choice to lockdown society has nothing to do with science, it has to do with a weighing of values and interests. The policymaker must therefore take responsibility for their decision rather than passing the buck to "Science."
![[UA] NAVI проти G2 Esports | Blast Premier Fall Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QWlIm4FGESQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Deflection also no one answered for denial of the sacraments during the pandemic.
McGilchrist’s follow-up magnum opus: ‘The matter with things: our brains, our delusions, and the unmaking of the world’ culminates in an exposition of the sacred. Highly recommended!
Agree strongly!
It struck me many times while reading Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton, that he had intuited many of the same things that Ian Mcgilchrist has arrvied at through scientific inquiry. I was pleasantly surprised to see Ian directly quote Chesterton in his latest book!
Good chat. I don't necessarily agree with the idea of punishing those alleged of crimes before they are found guilty, but given that this is the norm in the Church the policy should also apply to Rupnik.
Asking an honest question/posting honest commentary: If there isn't a "single Roman Rite" then what was the point of Quo Primum? From my reading it was intended to consolidate the myriad of liturgical abuses happening in the Roman Church into a more consistent liturgy to be said across the board (while retaining other rites of antiquity that could prove their pedigree e.g. Carmelite, Dominican etc.) The 1962 missal is arguably the best artifact we have of such a liturgy asked for and prescribed for the Roman Church by Pope St. Pius V. The Pauline Mass given us after the Council can be proven time and time again to be a rupture in the liturgical tradition; while it and its associated sacraments are indeed valid they are definitely not "traditional". Even the Ordinariate's "Divine Worship" seems odd to me as it was seemingly whipped up as a solution for High Church Protestants returning to the Church. I too admire and enjoy their liturgies but I can't help but get a funny feeling when I see their Lex Orandi built upon Cramner's Book of Common Prayer. If we want a liturgy with English tradition and patrimony, why not the Roman Rite or Sarum Use thereof that nurtured the English Church for centuries? There must be a single Roman Rite as there must be a single "Byzantine Rite" or other Apostolic rites of the Catholic Church. Such liturgical integrity and universality adds to the very Catholic nature of the Church.
Thank you for a fair and well explained overview of this book, it is a very detailed, incredibly interesting, important work. After all, this book, not counting notes, has a 58 page bibliography, some 1850 +/- references.
D.C. Schindler & Ian Mcgilchrist were hosted in conversation on a small UA-cam channel called The Meaning Code, if anyone is interested. For myself, that was a meeting of two very formative figures, which went exceedingly well.
1. Good Catholic art, particularly film and music, will solve a lot of problems, I think. It will create that right-brained "big picture". But it also has to start where people are at and then draw them in from there.
2. I typically attend the Latin Mass, but have no problems attending a well-said Novus Ordo, and have attended the Ukranian-Byzantine Rite a couple of times. My problem is not with the LM itself, but rather with people who hijack it to serve their insecure egotistic need for superiority and play act like they are from the Middle Ages. I know many wonderful people who attend the Latin Mass, and also some neo-psychotic people who attend it. At the end of the day, they're all flawed human beings. Novus Ordo people, on the other hand, often seem to have a big problem with worldliness (the majority, not the small percentage who attend all the conferences and listen to Catholic radio regularly).
3. I, too, wanted to think the best of Pope Francis. I thought he wanted to reach out to the lost, something that many people didn't seem to want to do. Now, I'm sure he wants to *become* one of the lost...
This is why I’m not catholic. The first half of your conversation makes the church seem appealing on a metaphysical large scale level. Like it has something to offer that is transcendental. But then when I see evil men like rupnik zanchetta and mcareick and maciel rise to the top I’m reminded why I am glad I left.
The Soviet Union had a structure where evil men like Beria and Stalin could rise up.
How is the Curia or Vatican different?
I don't agree with the comment about Von Balthasar and beauty. Nazism had beauty...Hugo Boss, paraphernalia and architecture. Even their armaments had beauty...but the ideology was evil. The Soviets had some beauty in terms of architecture, music and art but was evil. Evil can be very beautiful and the evil one is an angel of light Aesthetics and sensuality can either serve good or evil.
I like Copland but not as much as Shostakovich and Prokofiev. If the USSR were around they'd still be pumping out symphonies and the US would renew support for the arts in the distinctive sense of spite that was our cold war policy.
I think the comment was made with the implicit assumption that beauty, goodness & truth all ultimately find their home in God. Not that beauty cannot be used for evil, or that truth can't be wielded like a knife, but that when that happens they are divorced from their ultimate source, and are fallen, evil, false, etc.
I go with the science when I go the doctor or drive. The balance being sought is not children at school vs a particular virus but children at school against death at a not unreasonable level of probability.
Science does not make choices for us, and we should not pretend it does. A policymaker's choice to lockdown society has nothing to do with science, it has to do with a weighing of values and interests. The policymaker must therefore take responsibility for their decision rather than passing the buck to "Science."