Archbishop Sample: A House Divided Cannot Stand

[Emeraldlady]

OM. . .gracious. Really. Disease?
See my post above. I personally feel that much of the venom and fear directed at traditionalists is due to Catholics who have been conditioned to feel that traditionalists are 'diseased."

How sad.

Open up the thread again and read each post. For example no one attacks anything to do with the EF. But then a few posts in the OF bashing gets started. #6 (name removed by moderator) starts off with…

“I wouldn’t mind the OF if they hadn’t made Churches circular, removed the tabernacle from the Church and put it in a completely different room, removed altar rails, high altars, ad orientum, allowed communion in the hand which was illegally voted on and implemented in the US and Canada, integrated secular style music into the liturgy.”

In #82 Catholic ELA calls the OF music ‘banal’.

Stop it. It’s an insult to all of us who’ve grown up and lived the faith and are passing it on to our children from what we have been given. Telling us that the Mass that we’ve known loved and worshipped is objectively unacceptable is no way to talk about any Mass of a valid sacrament. There is something seriously wrong with that. Now if you can find a post on this thread that calls the EF objectively unacceptable I’d like to see.

 

[CRV]

you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, too.

That was a saying of my mothers

 

[PetraG]

OM. . .gracious. Really. Disease?
See my post above. I personally feel that much of the venom and fear directed at traditionalists is due to Catholics who have been conditioned to feel that traditionalists are 'diseased."

How sad.

The idea that other Catholics are “diseased” or “stunted” or “strayed” or what have you because they want to attend a Form of the Mass that is fully sanctioned by the Church demonstrates just what the Archbishop is talking about. Which “side” does the most bashing depends a lot on what group you are in and where the conversation is taking place and what people feel safe saying to those around them.

This is the work of the Evil One, this division. Suffice it to say that there are plenty of adherents of both Forms who are entirely supportive of those who are adherents of the other. The divisions come from those who are louder, but I don’t think the majority are backing either dog in this fight. In no way does it convince anybody that the strident ones are getting all the graces they say they are. Maybe they are, but if you put the light under a bushel basket so you can stand on your basket and yell at people, it defeats it all. That’s what the Archbishop meant: that has the stamp of the Evil One all over it. Whatever can be done to twist or stunt or sully or darken what could be a source of grace, the Evil One does that.

 

[CRV]

the Mass is the source and the summit but not the only end of the Christian life. It sends us out! If it doesn’t send us out acting and sounding like Christians

Which is the other component of active participation - not just at Mass for that one hour, but in the life of the Church as a whole including bringing Christ’s love into wider society wherever we are - our homes, our neighborhood, or workplace etc.

 

[PetraG]

Open up the thread again and read each post. For example no one attacks anything to do with the EF. But then a few posts in the OF bashing gets started. #6 (name removed by moderator) starts off with…

“I wouldn’t mind the OF if they hadn’t made Churches circular, removed the tabernacle from the Church and put it in a completely different room, removed altar rails, high altars, ad orientum, allowed communion in the hand which was illegally voted on and implemented in the US and Canada, integrated secular style music into the liturgy.”

In #82 Catholic ELA calls the OF music ‘banal’.

Stop it. It’s an insult to all of us who’ve grown up and lived the faith and are passing it on to our children from what we have been given. Telling us that the Mass that we’ve known loved and worshipped is objectively unacceptable is no way to talk about any Mass of a valid sacrament. There is something seriously wrong with that. Now if you can find a post on this thread that calls the EF objectively unacceptable I’d like to see.

There were objectively some misapplications after Vatican II. It isn’t just Pope Benedict who has talked about it. Pope Francis has done this, too, specifically refering to liturgical music. (You may be fortunate enough to have not heard the kind of music he was refering to, but it is out there.) Some of the new music we love and we’ll have to let go of, but other things written recently are good additions restorations of or are past ways of doing things that will be here to stay.

This is the risk that happens when people try something new, though. There was really bad music back when there was only the EF, but most bad music is eventually weeded out as time goes on. The new music introduced since the OF was introduced includes some fine music that is going to survive and some inappropriate music that is not destined to stick around. Some of it is not bad music so much as inappropriate music for liturgical use–and I mean as compared to what Vatican II described sacred music ought to be–because it was written at a time that blurred or even in some cases tried to eliminate the line between sacred and secular. I think we have to remember, though, that music has gone through this weeding-out process in every age. It isn’t as if there was never any church music written before Vatican II that didn’t make the grade.

As for the post on the thread that calls teh EF objectively unacceptable, it is in the initial post. Pope Benedict wrote about some in the church who have literally said the EF was harmful. The Archbishop referred to this in his remarks. There was a huge resistance to making it more available again. Why was that? Because there was a real fear of it and a real misunderstanding of the value of it.

Let’s remember that the Church even had to rein in polyphony, because the virtuosity was getting so out of hand that the words couldn’t be understood any more. Composers miss the mark, sometimes. It happens.

 

[CRV]

that I believe is most destructive is the anachronistic perspective on Vatican II and the subsequent reforms by modern traditionals.

I find that highly offensive as one who attends the EF Mass 99% of the time. I’m sure Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI doesn’t consider the EF Mass and those who attend it as being anachronistic in it/themselves.

That is such a divisive statement. Do you attend only the OF Mass?

In the daily exercise of our pastoral office, we sometimes have to listen, much to our regret, to voices of persons who, though burning with zeal, are not endowed with too much sense of discretion or measure. In these modern times they can see nothing but prevarication and ruin. They say that our era, in comparison with past eras, is getting worse, and they behave as though they had learned nothing from history, which is, none the less, the teacher of life. They behave as though at the time of former Councils everything was a full triumph for the Christian idea and life and for proper religious liberty.

We feel we must disagree with those prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand.

I believe the meaning was directed to the Christian life as a whole - not the liturgy to which you are applying it.

Looking back with rose coloured glasses on the past

Yet another slight and judgement on those who prefer the EF.

with an attitude of doom about today, spreads doubt, hopelessness and joylessness,

That is found in those who attend the OF as well. Plus that same attitude is found in non-Christians as well.

Strange how it is always assumed that those who love the EF Mass are the instigators of division …

 

[Emeraldlady]

The idea that other Catholics are “diseased” or “stunted” or “strayed” or what have you because they want to attend a Form of the Mass that is fully sanctioned by the Church demonstrates just what the Archbishop is talking about.

Read my post carefully. Anachronism is a disease. It is recognised as destructive in philosophy, history, science, medicine. To have an attitude towards a past time that regards it in terms of superior or inferior to today, erodes healthy growth into the future. I never said stunted or strayed. I don’t really care what the Church decides the form of the Mass should be because first and foremost, I believe she is acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That’s all that matters to me. What I don’t do though is go back and bash the pre VII Mass and I don’t go back and laud the reform. What the disease is is a particular attitude towards either that makes people look down on others and feel superior and entitled.

 

[PetraG]

Read my post carefully. Anachronism is a disease. It is recognised as destructive in philosophy, history, science, medicine. To have an attitude towards a past time that regards it in terms of superior or inferior to today, erodes healthy growth into the future. I never said stunted or strayed. I don’t really care what the Church decides the form of the Mass should be because first and foremost, I believe she is acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That’s all that matters to me. What I don’t do though is go back and bash the pre VII Mass and I don’t go back and laud the reform. What the disease is is a particular attitude towards either that makes people look down on others and feel superior and entitled.

It is not a disease that is cured by any means we can think of to oppose it, though. The temptation when someone voices dislike or opposition in an inappropriate way is to push back in an inapproproiate way. We need to be careful about that. As you point out, nothing is better or worse simply because it is older or newer. There are things, too, that are objectively fine that I don’t happen to like. It takes some work, I do have to admit that OK, that doesn’t violate any aesthetic laws. I just don’t happen to find it touches me the right way. I think we have to give people room to have natural likes and dislikes. The treasury of Church practice and tradition is big enough for that.

 

[PetraG]

I’m sure Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI doesn’t consider the EF Mass and those who attend it as being anachronistic in it/themselves.

That is such a divisive statement. Do you attend only the OF Mass?

No, no, I think the poster was refering to the actual problem of anachronism, which is an attitude that automatically accepts or rejects things based on the age in which they were introduced. I don’t think there was a meaning of rejecting the EF or that everyone who values the EF has that problem.

That is found in those who attend the OF as well. Plus that same attitude is found in non-Christians as well.

Strange how it is always assumed that those who love the EF Mass are the instigators of division …

Well, and there are people who think that if there was no OF, attendance at Mass would never have fallen off. That doesn’t explain why attendance at Greek Orthodox churches has fallen off. They haven’t changed a thing in about a thousand years, and their regular weekly attendance is going down, too. It is problem that goes across denominations. Either people are not going to worship every week or else they’re just dropping out of the denominations entirely. I’d have to look at my numbers, but I think the Catholics are doing about as well as anybody in Christendom.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I was speaking about anti-OF people and anti-EF people and I explained what I meant in the followup post, but you want to keep harping on what you think I meant.

I can’t explain myself any better, sorry.

 

[CRV]

No, no, I think the poster was refering to the actual problem of anachronism, which is an attitude that automatically accepts or rejects things based on the age in which they were introduced. I don’t think there was a meaning of rejecting the EF or that everyone who values the EF has that problem.

That’s not how the post read, and I do not think I am the only one who would interpret the post as I did.

The disease , if you will, that I believe is most destructive is the anachronistic perspective on Vatican II and the subsequent reforms by modern traditionals.

Well who else would have this allegedly “anachronistic perspective on Vatican II” - if not those who are considered modern traditionals which are those people who attend and prefer the EF Mass?

The implication is these people view the reforms of Vatican II in a destructive and anachronistic way ie “something[EF Mass] or someone that is not in its correct historical or chronological time [should remain where it belongs ie back in the past], especially a thing or person that belongs to an earlier time” = the EF Mass. iow looking back nostalgically and wanting the past to be the present, looking thorugh rose colored glasses etc etc.

 

[Emeraldlady]

There were objectively some misapplications after Vatican II. It isn’t just Pope Benedict who has talked about it. Pope Francis has done this, too, specifically refering to liturgical music. (You may be fortunate enough to have not heard the kind of music he was refering to, but it is out there.) Some of the new music we love and we’ll have to let go of, but other things written recently are good additions are destined to be additions to or restorations of past ways of doing things that will be here to stay.

This is the risk that happens when people try something new, though. There was really bad music back when there was only the EF, but most bad music is eventually weeded out as time goes on. The new music introduced since the OF was introduced includes some fine music that is going to survive and some inappropriate music that is not destined to stick around. Some of it is not bad music so much as inappropriate music for liturgical use–and I mean as compared to what Vatican II described sacred music ought to be–because it was written at a time that blurred or even in some cases tried to eliminate the line between sacred and secular. I think we have to remember, though, that music has gone through this weeding-out process in every age. It isn’t as if there was never any church music written before Vatican II that didn’t make the grade.

As for the post on the thread that calls teh EF objectively unacceptable, it is in the initial post. Pope Benedict wrote about some in the church who have literally said the EF was harmful. The Archbishop referred to this in his remarks. There was a huge resistance to making it more available again. Why was that? Because there was a real fear of it and a real misunderstanding of the value of it.

Let’s remember that the Church even had to reign in polyphony, because the virtuosity was getting so out of hand that the words couldn’t be understood any more. Composers miss the mark, sometimes. It happens.

Why do we have to only think in terms of “going back” to the “good old days”? Why can’t the reform of the reform look forward?

Pipe organs and Gregorians chants are lovely but so are the stringed and percussion instruments of today. There’s no reason that theologically correct hymns can’t make use of modern instruments. It isn’t objectively ‘banal band music’ as was stated above. In fact, it’s most probably that the first Christian songs of praise were accompanied by stringed lutes, harps and lires. Brass and wind, pipes, flutes, horns and trumpets. Percussion timbrels and cymbals.

Why do we always have to look back to one certain time and think it is the epitome of Christian worship?

 

[Emeraldlady]

PetraG:

No, no, I think the poster was refering to the actual problem of anachronism, which is an attitude that automatically accepts or rejects things based on the age in which they were introduced. I don’t think there was a meaning of rejecting the EF or that everyone who values the EF has that problem.

That’s not how the post read, and I do not think I am the only one who would interpret the post as I did.

Petra is right.

 

[PetraG]

Why do we have to only think in terms of “going back” to the “good old days”? Why can’t the reform of the reform look forward ?

Pipe organs and Gregorians chants are lovely but so are the stringed and percussion instruments of today. There’s no reason that theologically correct hymns can’t make use of modern instruments. It isn’t objectively ‘banal band music’ as was stated above. In fact, it’s most probably that the first Christian songs of praise were accompanied by stringed lutes, harps and lires. Brass and wind, pipes, flutes, horns and trumpets. Percussion timbrels and cymbals.

Why do we always have to look back to one certain time and think it is the epitome of Christian worship?

We don’t have to only look back and I don’t think Pope Benedict ever said we did. He did say he was at Vatican II, and notes that there was a big difference between what was said in the documents Pope Paul VI promulgated and what actually happened. There were some cases where the horse got the bit in his teeth and took off without direction.

The pipe organ and Gregorian chant were selected by the Church Fathers of Vatican II as having a particular pride of place in the liturgical music of the Roman Church. That doesn’t mean we have to have pipe organs in every church. It just means they identified those as particular treasures that should not be lost going forward. As for other instruments, they are not forbidden. Having said that, Vatican II does say that liturgical music and dance hall music are distinct genres. They don’t cross over, not because one kind of music is bad and the other is good, but because the intention for which people gather is very different.

 

[PetraG]

That’s not how the post read, and I do not think I am the only one who would interpret the post as I did.

I don’t think your interpretation was unreasonable and didn’t mean to say it was. I meant only to say that I don’t think that was what was meant. It is difficult to always get across the intended meaning when you only have a keyboard and can’t use eye contact to convey what you’re trying to say.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

that I believe is most destructive is the anachronistic perspective on Vatican II and the subsequent reforms by modern traditionals.

I find that highly offensive as one who attends the EF Mass 99% of the time. I’m sure Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI doesn’t consider the EF Mass and those who attend it as being anachronistic in it/themselves.

That is such a divisive statement. Do you attend only the OF Mass?

I attended the old Mass for the first 8 years of my life making my first Holy Communion and Confession. Since then for the last 49 years, I attend the Ordinary Mass. My journey has not been one of caring about the form as much as living the Gospel. I don’t believe that Catholics faith was damaged by Vatican II, even its flaws. The fact that the Church is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit in teaching on matters of faith and morals, has always felt like I can rest secure in the bosom of the Church. I took that grace for granted for a long time until I could see that many people don’t experience it. I at least want my kids to know what worries and attitudes not to take on board that will erode their joy, their faith, hope and love. That is why I’m here resisting the disease of anachronism.

 

[PetraG]

I attended the old Mass for the first 8 years of my life making my first Holy Communion and Confession. Since then for the last 49 years, I attend the Ordinary Mass. My journey has not been one of caring about the form as much as living the Gospel. I don’t believe that Catholics faith was damaged by Vatican II, even its flaws. The fact that the Church is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit in teaching on matters of faith and morals, has always felt like I can rest secure in the bosom of the Church. I took that grace for granted for a long time until I could see that many people don’t experience it. I at least want my kids to know what worries and attitudes not to take on board that will erode their joy, their faith, hope and love. That is why I’m here resisting the disease of anachronism.

The temptation to see the past through rose-colored glasses doesn’t imply that there wasn’t good lost in the process of making changes, good things that deserve to be brought into a present incarnation.

I will say that anybody who thinks we can bring back the past is being very unrealistic. That is not going to happen. That “disease” doesn’t have to be resisted, so be at peace. Whether we want the past back or not, it is not coming back.

 

[Emeraldlady]

The pipe organ and Gregorian chant were selected by the Church Fathers of Vatican II as having a particular pride of place in the liturgical music of the Roman Church. That doesn’t mean we have to have pipe organs in every church. It just means they identified those as particular treasures that should not be lost going forward. As for other instruments, they are not forbidden. Having said that, Vatican II does say that liturgical music and dance hall music are distinct genres. They don’t cross over, not because one kind of music is bad and the other is good, but because the intention for which people gather is very different.

I agree, but I was addressing the comment that called it ‘banal band music’.

 

[PetraG]

I agree, but I was addressing the comment that called it ‘banal band music’.

Yes, there are people who think that anything that was not written for the pipe organ is bad music or music that doesn’t belong in a church. My dad thought that. Well, some parishes had music he liked and some had perfectly acceptable music that he didn’t like. His parish had both, depending on what musicians were on hand. Trust me, the pianists had no business at an organ. That really would have been dreadful (and sometimes it was, because they bravely tried it). Yes, wow, bad organ music is every bit as bad as any other bad music. Merely banal would have been a welcome alternative. It doesn’t take as much difference as one might think to be transported from the church to Wrigley Field, let’s just say that, particularly if a parish has an organ that might be politely called “difficult.” (Organ lovers, be careful what you wish for. )

 

[Emeraldlady]

I will say that anybody who thinks we can bring back the past is being very unrealistic. That is not going to happen. That “disease” doesn’t have to be resisted, so be at peace. Whether we want the past back or not, it is not coming back.

It pays to highlight the ‘disease’ as Pope John XXIII did in his opening speech at Vatican II. It’s not a benign attitude. Fr Ripperger also addresses its toxicity. Nothings going to get better until we look forward to the coming again with openness to the mysteries of the Holy Spirit and the God of Surprises.