W
workinprogress
Guest
Fix, you should read G.K. Chesterton’s “Orthodoxy”. If I have him right, he says that plenty of change happens legitimately through orthodoxy and the right channels. The others seem to just be out to destroy conventions (and, in my opinion) replace it with socialism. Fr Stravinskas said that, those who want us to go back to the earliest Christian traditions should consider whether they would like the kind of confessions they had back then(,[my addition] infrequent and requiring hard penance for absolution). That’s what we would have to do to be consistent if we want the early Christian days back again, but I think proponents of that just want to revive the huggy, feely community stuff so as not to face the hard truths. I believe a Pope talked against this movement because the Church evolves gradually. What we got from the periti is not the gradual evolution.
Fr. Pacwa said that the Church started with the language of the Jews at the time (I forget the name now), went to Greek and then to Latin. I don’t recall the Church having many languages. I know Vatican 2 did not call for all-vernacular masses (that’s devisive anyway) and I wish the Pope had not encouraged cultures to inject their culture into their masses (that seems more devisive because it will make masses more of the creature of each nation than that of which Christ instituted and his successors developed and you risk getting popular music instead of sacred music in it). For example, there is a Polish National Church and we have clerics who speak of an American Catholic Church–yikes. To be a universal Church, it should retain its own language, (cultural and Tradition) borders and culture or else it will get divided (not essentially but in the uneducated understanding of Joe/Jane Catholic Layman such as those who find Latin more threatening than pop music renditions of modern Catholic songs and old liturgical music using drums–yikes)
That’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Fr. Pacwa said that the Church started with the language of the Jews at the time (I forget the name now), went to Greek and then to Latin. I don’t recall the Church having many languages. I know Vatican 2 did not call for all-vernacular masses (that’s devisive anyway) and I wish the Pope had not encouraged cultures to inject their culture into their masses (that seems more devisive because it will make masses more of the creature of each nation than that of which Christ instituted and his successors developed and you risk getting popular music instead of sacred music in it). For example, there is a Polish National Church and we have clerics who speak of an American Catholic Church–yikes. To be a universal Church, it should retain its own language, (cultural and Tradition) borders and culture or else it will get divided (not essentially but in the uneducated understanding of Joe/Jane Catholic Layman such as those who find Latin more threatening than pop music renditions of modern Catholic songs and old liturgical music using drums–yikes)
That’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.