Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Tablet
Topic Started: Saturday, 6. October 2007, 01:42 (1,085 Views)
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
OsullivanB
Monday, 17. November 2008, 14:18
Some of them are Roman Catholics i.e. Catholics loyal to Rome. Others are SSPX Catholics. There may even be some of their prototypes, the Old Catholics. There are also some cranks.
I'm glad you added the word "also", OSullivanB!
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SeanJ
Member Avatar
Administrator
I have just started reading The Thought of Benedict XVI by Aidan Nichols OP. In the foreword I find that "An attempt by the present writer, in the pages of the London Tablet, to highlight the positive challenge behind Ratzinger's negative criticsms of the present state of Church and theology met with a mixed response."

Perhaps if I had been reading The Tablet regularly I would not have had to wait for the book.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PJD


At least you had the grace to look. I think there's rather more in that article than you mined from it.

OsB:

Sorry to be late making reference to your reply, but I am still having problems with my computer. Hope to be on Broadband by Christmas.

I did have another (admittedly quick) look again at p.11 - and I must be somewhat confused here but I didn't really understand at all quite what the priest was getting at. I found it more confusing than Aquinas; and that is saying something. But maybe it's just me.

Can you summarize exactly what he was saying?

PJD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
I just don't get the reason so many people mock The Tablet. There are people in the Catholic Church (some of them writing in the Catholic media) whose views are not the same as mine. I am interested in reading what they have to write, because I want to know about their point of view. There is no point in mocking them for reading a particular publication.

Mock the paper, not the readers.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

Even better, read The Tablet and mock the ideas - intelligently. Destroy their weakness. Improve the duped reader's understanding of the true faith. That, of course, would take active effort. So it may not become widespread or frequent.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Rose of York
Thursday, 20. November 2008, 01:35
I just don't get the reason so many people mock The Tablet. There are people in the Catholic Church (some of them writing in the Catholic media) whose views are not the same as mine. I am interested in reading what they have to write, because I want to know about their point of view. There is no point in mocking them for reading a particular publication.

Mock the paper, not the readers.
It's because The Tablet purports to be a Catholic paper. And it's not those who simply read The Tablet to find out what liberals are saying who cop flak. It is those who actually support the paper's stance.

I've read it occasionally. I've even had a couple of letters published in it (nigh on ten years ago).
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fortunatus

OsullivanB
Thursday, 20. November 2008, 02:02
Even better, read The Tablet and mock the ideas - intelligently. Destroy their weakness. Improve the duped reader's understanding of the true faith. That, of course, would take active effort. So it may not become widespread or frequent.
OsB. In theory, you're right. But I would no more help fill their coffers than I would the coffers of the Guardian. I do read the Tablet occasionally when Father leaves the old issues at the back of the Church and some of the stuff is worth reading, I agree. A lot of it is wet flannel, "full of sound and fury and signifying nothing", to quote Shakespeare. Except that the only time they can create any fury is when the Pope or one of the Vatican Congregations dares to come out with something that doesn't fit the liberal mindset.
As Clare says, it's supposed to be a Catholic paper. Time was when it was very much a mainstream Catholic paper but it now seems to have wandered off into Guardian territory.
You don't need Damian Thomson to tell you how livid it was at the election of Benedict. I think "how could they be so stupid?" was a relatively polite comment by one of its staff. But I haven't heard a word of criticism at the "Magic Circle's" neglect of Summorum Pontificum, for example.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

Fortunatus, I well understand your comments, having similar feelings to yours about The Guardian. Your comments prompted me to look at the history set out on The Tablet's website, which shows how its orthodoxy has varied. For a long time it was clerically owned. The opportunity to ensure this remained so was lost in 1935.

I would very happily change my subscription to another periodical, but they are thin on the ground. For me less than £2 a week is better value than any combination of The Universe, Times and Herald.

For balance, or perhaps that should be ballast, I take the English language weekly edition of L'Osservatore Romano.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fortunatus

I think you're right about the "ballast" bit there, OsB. :grin:
I confess my sin. Also my bias. Since I am inclined to agree with POD and since I am also disinclined to agree with Lash, my starting point is that my prejudices are confirmed so why do I need to read a publication I mostly disagree with in order to have those views confirmed? (Or worse, possibly to have them undermined? :wh: )
Once my good padre releases his copy I will read the relevant bit though. Promise!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quicunque vult

Notwithstanding the occasionally good article, the overwhelming ethos of the Tablet is towards rebellion and dissent. Best not read.

QV
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

OsullivanB
Saturday, 15. November 2008, 00:13
"Bitter Pill". I assume this is a "witty" reference to The Tablet. There is an article by Professor Emeritus Nicholas Lash in which Lash criticises Bishop O'Donoghue's thinking. It is an intelligently argued piece which is better read than sneered at by those who have not read it. If anyobody reads it and takes issue with it, I would be happy to debate it. I am heartily sick of the most intelligent English weekly pubication about Catholic affairs being scoffed at again and again by people who plainly don't read it.
It seems that Bishop O'D responds to that article in this weeks Tablet. http://www.thetablet.co.uk/
I may have to spend some more time in the church porch to read his comments

KatyA
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fortunatus

... meanwhile, a trawl through the Tablet archives for other articles by Lash produced this one from July 21 last year (I'm not going out of my way to look for trouble; I just hit 'Vatican 2' in the drop-down menu in the hopes that last week's piece might be there).
Again, it may be my prejudice coming to the surface but the opening paragraph strikes me as singularly peevish and typical of the approach which is generally described as "tabletista". The emphases are mine ...

"On 10 July, L'Osservatore Romano published a statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), entitled "Responses to some questions regarding certain aspects of the doctrine on the Church". I have no idea why the document has been produced, nor where these "questions" come from. It is, in fact, dated 29 June. Perhaps publication was delayed so that it could come out under the smokescreen created by the long-awaited appearance of the motu proprio by which the Pope, overriding the authority of the episcopate (although he denies that he is doing this) has given widespread permission for the use of the unreformed Missal of 1962."

I mean, what is this? "I have no idea ..." is pretty close in my reading to a dismissal, a suggestion that the thing was pointless and almost beneath contempt. There follows at the very least an implication that the Vatican is engaging in New Labour "good day to bury bad news" behaviour; that the Pope is a liar ("although he denies ..." carries an implied "I don't believe him", else why mention it at all); and "unreformed" is simply a redundant weasel word.
There is a similarity here to the suggestion — I can't remember the source — that Benedict was being "disobedient" when he issued Summorum Pontificum.
Conclusion:
1. QV's last posting has it right;
2. Though I still haven't read POD's argument or Lash's reply, it would seem from this that Lash might very well be one of those that POD was referring to; that Lash is aware of that; and that POD had it spot on. This sort of supercilious, dismissive approach to the Vatican (and to the Pope) seems to characterise the Tablet's editorial stance. They appear to hate Benedict and all he stands for.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerard

Quote:
 
They appear to hate Benedict and all he stands for.


This statement is so extreme that I expect it would be simplicity itself to prove wrong.

Find just one thing the Tablet compliments Pope Benedict on and the statement is shown to be wrong and the residence of the "hate" identified.

I dont take the Tablet and leave this task to those who do.

Gerry
"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fortunatus

I was very careful to stress the word "appear".
No I don't think they actually hate Benedict but whereas most of us are at the very least content to give the Pope the benefit of the doubt ( :nw: ) and mostly to support him even when we can't quite see where he's going, it does seem that the Tablet believes it has the right to rule on whether this Pope is or is not "obedient" or whether he has "overriden" the authority of the episcopate or whether the cardinals were "stupid" to elect him in the first place.
He's morally, theologically and liturgically conservative and they hate it. Most of all they hate the fact that he is not John Paul II. Like latter-day Jacobites drinking their toasts to the "king over the water" they probably still raise their glasses to him at their dinner parties. :cool:
At least that's the impression they convey to me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerard

Quote:
 
He's morally, theologically and liturgically conservative and they hate it.


I see no "appear" here.

Quote:
 
Most of all they hate the fact that he is not John Paul II.


Nor here.

What I do see are gross sweeping accusations of "they" doing "hating".

This is very revealing.

Gerry
"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply