BattleLore, Harry Dresden, and Catholics
October 19, 2007 in ANSWERING COMMENTS, BOARD GAMES, BOOKS, CATHOLICISM, THE SIMPSONS NEWS, Traditional Catholics
THE SIMPSONS NEWS
We didn’t meet our shipping dates and we still have a long way to go. We were suppose to ship Act III last Friday but it turns out we hadn’t even shipped all of Act II yet. I’ve been working twelve hour days all this week, trying to get as much done as possible. We are soooo behind.
BOARD GAMES
Wow! I actually got to play a board game last week. I asked my wife if she wanted to play a board game and she actually said yes. So I went to the game closet and after thinking about what I should get out, I thought maybe she might like BattleLore. BattleLore is a light fantasy wargame that comes with a bunch of miniatures. It uses a game system called the Command and Colors System. It’s a really simple two player game and it can be played in about an hour. If you want to know more about it, click below:
BattleLore review from Board Game Geek
Purchase BattleLore
My wife had never played before. I showed her how to play and set up the board to the first scenario (the board is modular so you don’t always play the same game everytime). She played the English and I played the French. In this scenario she was at a disadvantage because she had very few strong people in armor and a bunch of lightly armored archers while I had a bunch of heavily armored knights on horse back. The only advantage she had was that she got to have six command cards in her hand while I only got four. After about forty minutes of play it looked like the game was almost over and I was going to win. The winner of this scenario was the first person to destroy four of their opponents units. I had three points and my wife only had one. A turn later my wife tied the game by taking out two of my units after rolling two lucky rolls. In my next turn I attacked trying to win the game but the dice didn’t roll my way. My wife got to battle the unit I used to attack her and she took them out in another lucky roll and she won the game. I couldn’t believe it. I was sooo close to wining and I lost two turns later. Needless to say my wife had a good time and really liked the game. Looks like we’ll be playing it again sometime, which is good because it’s one of my favorite games.
BOOKS
Oh MAN, there’s nothing like reading a good book. I like to read but I often find myself getting bored with a lot of books I pick up. That’s why it’s great to find a book that I just can’t wait to get back to. I’ve been reading Jim Butcher’s Wizard for Hire
CATHOLICISM (Answering Comments)
Warning: The following is about Catholicism. If you could care less about this stuff, please feel free to skip it.
Before I even begin, a quick word about the Society of Pius X. I must retract my statement from “WHAT IN THE WORLD IS A ‘TRADITIONAL’ CATHOLIC?” where I wrote, “…this person is actually not a Roman Catholic at all but belongs to the schismatic sect of the Society of Pius X.” The truth is, he is. The ideas put forth by the Society of Pius X, in no way condemns them in the eyes of the Church. The Society of Pius X is an excommunicated (no longer in “communion” with the Church and no longer able to partake of the Sacraments) group of priests. This means the excommunication effects the priests and the priests alone and doesn’t effect the laity in their congregation. The reason the Society got excommunicated was not because of the beliefs they hold but because they began ordaining priests without permission of the Vatican (something that they are quick to admit to and defend in their site).
Bill asked me a question again under my post, “WHAT IN THE WORLD IS A ‘TRADITIONAL’ CATHOLIC?” It went like this:
Well I asked my co-worker what a traditional Catholic is and his answer matches with your first speculation. He believes that the Church has (and I’m only paraphrasing) has changed the dogma and that it no longer holds the true beliefs that it once has. Again I was curious…in what way has it changed where the meaning has been altered? It is true that mass is no longer conducted in Latin and the priest is not speaking with his back facing towards the people. And there are certain issues (which I can’t remember because I’m too tired and lazy) where the Church has redefined to reflect the changes of the times( or was it something else?).
Well he did answer my question regarding to that, but I forgot what it was…DUH! I’ll ask him again and bring a notepad…
By “…his answer matches with your first speculation.” I take you to mean that he is from the Society of Pius X.
Okay, so the answer to your question about what meanings in the dogmas have been altered is, “none”. Of course, the Society of Pius X doesn’t see it that way. I’ve decided that the best way to show what they believe is to link you to their FAQs pages. It’ll basically tell you what you wanted to know. The FAQs page is full of accusations mostly against Vatican II. Just as a disclaimer though, after having read through some of the things written there, I noticed that Vatican II teaching is grossly misrepresented and therefore sounds like the worst thing in the universe. I don’t think this is a deliberate misrepresentation. I think they honestly see Vatican II this way. It looks to me that they hate Vatican II so much, their willing to find nothing good in it at all and in so doing, will always go out of their way to find something wrong out of sheer prejudice.
I also noticed that the language they use to represent themselves is political in nature. The term conservative is used in a few places. It’s been my experience that when you read or hear a Catholic use terms like conservative or liberal to represent themselves it usually means that they are coming from a political place first and a religious place second. Usually this means that what they say doesn’t actually represent the faith they hold so much as the system of thought they use to interpret it. Catholicism is neither conservative nor liberal it’s Catholic. I hope I’m misunderstanding the way they’re using the term.
I also find it odd that they are so anti-protestant. This coming from a group of priests who refuse to humble themselves to Church discipline (no matter how unjust). Saint Padre Pio went through something similarly unjust but was humble and obedient enough to endure it in spite of the souls that would suffer for it and now he’s a Canonized Saint. It saddens me to see people who obviously love their Catholicism, willfully refusing Church discipline and by doing so separating themselves from the Church. Then turning around and proclaiming themselves the only holders of the True Faith. Ironically these actions call to mind a famous person who did the same thing five hundred years ago, namely Martin Luther. I can see the good they’re trying to do but, in trying to fight what they perceive is protestantism in the Church, have they become yet another type of neo-protestant?
I hope this makes some sense to you Bill because it sure as heck makes no sense to me. This stuff is just way to confusing. I personally have very mixed feeling about the Society. I see a lot of good in them as well as bad. Let me know what you get out of it.
If you like what you read, please consider signing up to my rss feed.
Comments are appreciated as well.
I also have a store. Click Here and check it out.
If you would like to have a text ad on my site, click on the red BUY LINKS button under the Archives list.
And while you’re at it, please Digg me too.
Writing this blog is almost a part time job for me. Tips are most welcome.
Thanks for the research and insight Luis! It sounds to me, based on your info here, that the split is more political than anything else. There is something spiritually stifling about it when it comes to politics in religion because the beliefs do not come from the heart but out of obligation to your party…
And there you go again Luis, pushing literature while engrossing us with this discussion about Catholicism…trying to get me hooked again, huh? I just got over the shakes from the Alan Moore withdrawals and now this? You’re not going to get me this time! No way dude! I’m clean and in no way get addicted again…Um, so how many pages are we talking about per book?
As someone who considers himself a traditional Catholic who is familiar with, but not affiliated with the SSPX, I’d like to contribute to this discussion, especially now that the term “conservative” has been deemed purely political. A more accurate description might be “orthodox,” or perhaps “ultra-orthodox.” In a nutshell, traditional Catholics see a continuity problem with Vatican 2; we feel the organic development of the Faith was, well, if not broken, certainly ruptured.
Take, for instance, your comments on the SSPX being “anti-Protestant.” Prior to V2, the Church’s position was that Protestants needed to be converted to be saved. Since V2, there has been more emphasis on ecumenical discussions than conversions. The only problem is that extra ecclesiam nulla salus – outside the Church there is no salvation – is de fide dogma, which is the absolute highest level of dogma, and MUST be believed by all Catholics. Since V2 the Church has spent all of its time trying to figure out how Protestants can be considered Catholics, when the last thing Protestants want is to be considered Catholics. That’s just one quick example of how an orthodox Catholic might feel post-V2 doctrine conflicts with pre-V2 doctrine.
Sadly, the typical good Catholic these days has no idea what went on at the Second Vatican Council, or more importantly, what the Council pronouncements said. V2 documents are notoriously ambiguous, and have been (mis)interpreted in myriad ways. Many, many books have been written about these concerns, so I’ll never do it justice in a combox – I apologize for the long post as it is. I would recommend pretty much anything by Michael Davies (who’s rather level-headed) or The Rhine Runs Into the Tiber, which gives a play-by-play of the Council.
I’ll leave you with a simple, but important, example of how closely the documents of V2 are being followed in the Church today. Christ died on a Friday, and it was the custom of Catholics to abstain from eating meat every Friday in penance for the sacrifice He made for us on the Cross. At V2, it was recognized that giving up meat on Friday was not the most meaningful penance for some people (vegetarians, people feasting on lobster, etc.) and gave them the option to substitute a more meaningful penance of their choice. The documents stress that giving up meat on every Friday (not just in Lent) should be the norm, but if you want to substitute something more meaningful, you may. Now, how many Catholics do you know that are aware of this, and how many of them don’t eat meat on Fridays or do some other penance?
That, btw, might be part of the reason your Lents haven’t been as fruitful as you’d like: could it be you’ve overlooked the beauty of penance, the gift we give back to God when we do it well?
I hear ya brother. I have one foot more in the “Traditional” or “Orthodoxy” camp than most. I know the arguments too. I also know about the abstinence on EVERY Friday. My lack of getting a fruitful Lent was because I was going through the physical motions of abstinence but was neglecting the praying and alms giving that complimented it.
Yes, I understand the language of VII is vague, which is the reason why we have Tradition and Dogma to interpret it by, in spite of the fact that many of those who where in the council, tried to undermine Church teaching. It did not succeed, but it did hurt us.
My calling SSPX “anti-protestant” may have been an over simplification (I was writing to a non-Catholic so I was trying to make it simple), but saying the Church has spent all it’s time trying to figure out how to call Protestants Catholics is also a simplification.
Enough time has pass since the persons who rebelled against The Church with full knowledge and full consent are long since dead. The Protestants of today have NEVER known the fullness of Christ’s Church. Telling them their going to hell isn’t going to convert them anymore than having them tell US we’re going to hell is going to convert us to Protestantism. We can’t fault them for what they don’t know they’re missing. Many of them live far more pious lives with the little bit of the True Church they have than many Catholics do with the fullness of what WE have. The dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church is still there and it’s still true, but there is ALWAYS hope for God’s mercy and compassion. VII merely acknowledges their baptisms. A sacrament which can be done by anyone when done correctly. This means they have one toe in the Catholic door and that MIGHT be enough. We don’t really know. We hope.
Vague wording or no. Damaging as the council may have been. The Church is still THE CHURCH, and the gates of hell will NOT prevail against it. To rebel against it, is not an option. You want to change the Church from within? Do it like it has been done for thousands of years, become a Saint. We need Saints not rebels. That’s what really annoys me most about the “orthodox” that rebel. It only goes to show they aren’t orthodox at all.
I will say this though, there is a definite trend within the Church today, lead by the Pope himself, returning us to clearer orthodoxy. Just look at who the Pope appointed to be the new Bishop of L.A. Praise God!
Pax Christi.
Amen. I think there’s very little we disagree on here, Luis. I’m not a V2 holdout, I grew up in the V2 Church, attending relatively reverent Novus Ordo Masses. But I learned more about my Faith, and have practiced it much better, in four years in a TLM parish than in a lifetime in my old parishes. As a bonus, my wife converted (Deo gratias), something that was never an issue in the previous 15 years.
I’m not SSPX, but I don’t quite consider them rebels, either. The history of the SSPX is complicated, and a good case can be made for them having gotten the dirty end of the stick. They (correctly) believe it is wrong to be obedient to error. The arguments come when we discuss what error is. I have attended a Confirmation and a retreat at SSPX parishes, and can say firsthand that not only do they consider Benedict XVI the pope, they pray for him more than most Catholics.
I guess that’s the thing that bothers me about “traditional Catholics” being stigmatized or called rebels: the average traditional Catholic knows more about their Faith and does more to practice it than the average “regular” Catholic. They pray their Rosaries daily, attend Eucharistic Adoration regularly, go to Confession regularly and not only attend Mass every Sunday, but know that not attending Mass every Sunday without a darn good reason is a mortal sin, making you liable for eternal damnation if you die without confessing it. They also go to Mass looking like they’re there to worship God, not like they just happened to be in the neighborhood and dropped in.
You make excellent points about our separated brethren, but “no salvation outside the Church” isn’t merely a stick to beat on others with, it’s meant as an exhortation to the faithful that if they don’t preach the Gospel and convert non-Catholics, those souls might be lost – and we’ll be called to task for them being lost. I don’t think screaming, “REPENT!” is the right approach, but neither is giving them a pass because they’re good people who didn’t do the actual rebelling. V2 itself may have merely recognized the validity of their baptism, but the practice since the Council has been to de-emphasize missionary work and conversion, which puts many souls at risk.
I like where you’re coming from, Luis. I like the way you practice your faith, and that you blog about it as well. Our approaches differ more in nuance than substance, and I agree that things are looking up, though my optimism may be a little more cautious.
Oh, and thanks for waving your shiny new bishop in my face; my beach is a little south of yours, so we still have another year or so to wait.
God bless.
Awesome man!
It think I should clarify what I meant by “rebels”. I don’t think traditional Catholics are rebels. I was specifically talking about the SSPX priests who were excommunicated for for ordaining priests without permission from the Vatican and not repenting. An excommunication that has since been lifted. The Catholics who went to Mass under the, then, excommunicated priests, where not under that same excommunication. Only the priests. Those where who I referred to as rebels.