R
reggieM
Guest
Yes, I imagine some non-progressive parents can be found just about anywhere.
Countercultural San Francisco parish attracts growing congregation
- Status
O
OraLabora
Guest
What is a liturgical liberal and modernist? Calling someone a “modernist” is an accusation of heresy, something we laity have no authority to do.Thanks be to God! As liturgical liberals and modernists can see, it is the traditions of Catholicism that ignite faith and fervor and bring people to the Church!
May God help us all to return to the Truth!
R
reggieM
Guest
There are colloquial uses of terms like modernist, liberal and heretic that the laity can legitimately use. Those terms don’t necessarily carry a canonical status.
O
OraLabora
Guest
In that case then, they are pejorative and using pejoratives to address people we don’t agree with is hardly charitable.
Now what is a “liturgical liberal and modernist”?
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
I always remember when Francis George was named as the Archbishop of Chicago, in succession to Joseph Cardinal Bernardin. He was questioned at his first press conference in Chicago about what one could expect from his impending tenure as Archbishop and he thoroughly castigated the use of terms “liberal” and “conservative” as utterly deplorable. As indeed it is.
I remember him especially from his tenure as President of the Conference of the U.S. Catholic Bishops…he was extremely personable.
As for the use of the word “heretic”, I have not encountered that term bandied about so much as here. And that is a condemnation of the forum…not a praise of it. The laity have no place employing it at all, least of all as I have seen it used here recently.
What struck me in the post you commented upon earlier was the statement
Return to the Truth? We have lived the Truth – and in the Truth – beside Saint John XXIII, Blessed Paul VI, and Saint John Paul II and they led us out of the previous era, through the Ecumenical Council, to a Church renewed.
One has to go back many centuries to find three Popes, one after the other, raised to the altars because of their exceptional holiness.
We should be praying for those souls who chose to break communion with the Successor of Peter – that they may realise their error and folly and return to an unconditional and total submission to both the Successor of Peter and to the teachings of the last Ecumenical Council…those who had rejected these men, now canonised and beatified respectively.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I know I’ll get chastised for bringing it up but the book “The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber” seems to separate the opposing factions at Vatican II as “liberal” and “conservative.” Perhaps this is where people are led to think anyone who says or attends the New Mass falls into the first category. I don’t believe this is fair but I didn’t write this book or any others dealing with such labels.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
The ‘liturgists’ in charge of this LA REC are normally accused of some combination of modernism, pagan symbolism and plain weirdness, in my opinion lots of weird: youtu.be/MBBKtxnoiT8
O
otjm
Guest
Colloquialisms such as modernist show a number of things; among them, that the user has absolutely no clue what Modernism was about; additionally, it is used as a snarky comment meant to put down someone the speaker does not like - truly a Christ-like attitude.
Not.
Further, the use of the terms such as liberals when coupled with “modernists” too often implies that those who prefer the OF and follow the Magisterium are somehow lesser in their Catholicism than those who fit within the speaker’s concept of being Catholic. It comes across as the equivalent of a person who strongly prefer’s the OF to a “Lefebrevist”, a point also uncalled for.
And when laity start using the term “heretic” it all too often simply mean that the speaker has little theological training, and is again a snarky comment used to put down others. Again, another example of Christ-like attitude.
Not.
We would all do better to speak of those things about Catholicism we like and appreciate, rather than going around playing the “One-up on others” card.
Thumper’s mother got it right a long time ago. Canonical status has far less to do with it than false pride.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
Father, I have frequently seen members on this forum criticize the use of these terms as you have. However, I have not heard a good counter proposal for how one should talk about different approaches within the Church.
Do you have any suggestions for how to compare (to take a fairly non-controversial topic) John Paul’s approach to beatification and sainthood to that of Benedict?
I suppose one could accurately, but quite callously, say one was fast and loose while the other was stingy. But I think it much simpler and not at all perjorative to describe one as more liberal in his approach to this issue, and the other as more conservative.
O
otjm
Guest
One could just as easily say that John Paul 2, being the chief law giver could waive the procedure in specific circumstances, and Benedict 16 chose to follow normal procedures.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
I wish a priest in my area would do this.
R
reggieM
Guest
True, we should not use these terms in an uncharitable manner.
This goes for terms like conservative and traditionalist and Lefevbrist as well.
At the same time we’ve heard some terms from the Holy See that were expressed in a non-canonical manner: Restorationist, neo-Pelagian, Fundamentalist …and many others like this. So, it’s not necessarily uncharitable.
We also shouldn’t assume that some groups of people do not want to be considered liberal, modernist or heretical. Some do, so there’s no offense offered when we refer to them by those terms.
So, it’s intention and target and purpose. Advice in general about those terms is good, but it can also be too sweeping.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I have little idea about terminology, but I’m glad that we are permitted to easily attend different types of Mass and I enjoy taking part in all of them.
R
reggieM
Guest
I find it healthy that some Catholics still think that liberalism, modernism and heresy are major problems. We’ll find people like that here in CAF. But this forum is representative of a highly-specialized attitude among Catholics - a small minority. Whether a person has a clue about what Modernism is, yes I think it’s rare to find someone who fully understands it.
If that is the implication then that is not a good thing. No one who follows the Magisterium and has a love for the official liturgy of the Church in the OF should be labeled a liberal or modernist on that basis alone. In fact, in my experience those people are often considered “rigid” or “conservative” - but those terms are just as problematic as the opposites.
I understand what you’re saying, but I’d ask also to be compassionate towards those who are suffering in parish conditions that are not conducive to prayer and even at odds with what the Church directs with regards to liturgy. For many Catholics in my area, it took years of fighting against liberals and modernists to have certain erroneous practices stopped. The same is true for most places where the EF is offered - there was a struggle and fight in most places to make that happen.
Charity towards others in this regard is of the highest importance - certainly. It makes no sense to complain about sinful, secularizing behaviors and yet commit sins of uncharity towards others at the same time. It’s hypocritical.
But at the same time, our corrections of the name-callers should not be excessively harsh, condemning and lacking understanding in themselves. There are false teachers in the Church today.
R
reggieM
Guest
True, and we keep in mind that book goes back to the early days of the Vatican II reform.
The New Mass has since then evolved over time as well, and that evolution occured because there was criticism of the liturgy from the earliest days. There was a time when many priests had an “anything goes” attitude towards the liturgy and bishops would not or could not stop the extreme liberalizing-secularizing practices since there were few guidelines on what was not permitted. So, the New Mass became associated with liberalism based on these extreme behaviors, as well as from very poor translations and a severe movement away from all the traditional Catholic expressions that people were accustomed to. The New Mass was considered a factor in the radical alteration of churches (removal of statues, removal of altar rails, reconfiguration of sanctuary, removal of main altar, repositioning of tabernacle) as well as use of secuarlized music and the abandonment of Gregorian chant and polyphony, and even the belief among some that the Latin language was forbidden in any place at all in the Mass.
So, it was a time of revolution (1966 to late 1980s or so) and the New Mass ended up being considered, by some, to be the driving force of a secularizing tendency that caused a drop-off in faith, in vocations and in Catholic life.
Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI did very much to correct the situation (and this OP is an example of the correction that came about). We can imagine and hope that in a short while, the notion that the OF is “liberal” will disappear entirely.
But it’s good to understand the history. Authors like Michael Davies, Abp. Lefevbre, Cardinal Ottaviani, Dietrich von Hildebrand, James Hitchcock, Anne Muggeridge, Msgr. Gamber and others, detailed (from a strong-critical “conservative” view) of what the situation was like in the days after the council and the liberalizing development of the New Mass through the papacy of St. John Paul II.
O
OraLabora
Guest
I would suggest that the appropriate way to call different people within the Church is quite simply “Catholic”.
We should all be striving to be orthodox. Inasmuch as we are all sinners, we all reject the teachings of the Church to a certain degree and have some work on our own inner conversion to do to reach sanctity. The Church is universal, so we will find all sorts of people and thoughts within her. If we didn’t, she would no longer be universal.
But the bottom line is that we are all Catholic on account of the indelible mark of our baptism. It really is as simple as that. We as laity have no business throwing about terms like heretic, liberal or modernist to label our fellow Catholics. If we disagree with anyone, and disagree we will until we are in the Church Triumphant, the basis of interrelations with those we disagree with should be dialogue, not name-calling. The first and foremost manner to start a dialogue is by listening, as says the Rule of Saint Benedict. When we understand the wounds of Original Sin and particular sins or wounds that caused someone to stray from orthodoxy, then we have a basis for continual dialogue with that person. If we come out guns blazing saying the person is a heretic or modernist, then inevitably he or she will shut down dialogue.
The first word in the Rule of Saint Benedict is “Listen”, more fully, “Listen with the ear of your heart…”. With the ear of your heart is important, it implies listening with empathy and trying to see the other person’s viewpoint from his or her shoes. The second point to retain from the Rule is that you greet everyone as if Christ Himself were in front of you. Regardless of whether you agree with him/her. If you happened to be in prison ministry, that would even apply to the most notorious killer you should happent to meet.
As for the liturgical side of things, there are two approved forms of the Mass, two approved forms of the Roman Divine Office, and multiple approved forms of the Monastic Divine Office. All are licit, and someone preferring one over the other (or bound to one over the other, such as Monastics), are simply that, people attending or praying whatever liturgy they happen to be praying, for their own reasons.
I myself tend to get my hackles up at ultra-traditionalists. That is my bad, and I should apply what I preach, but it goes on both sides. In my case it probably comes from having been labeled a “liberal” and a modernist, by some very active members of CAF, simply because I prefer the OF liturgy (OF Mass, and the Liturgy of the Hours and a monastic version of it). In the event, I am neither liberal nor modernist. I a moderately conservative to centrist politically, and I strive to conform to the teachings of the Church in my spiritual life. Yet being called names and labelled falsely in a condescending manner really, really hurt (and I’m sure the person responsible is reading this thread).
So I do wish the name calling would stop. It is divisive, uncharitable and most certainly NOT Catholic in spirit or letter.
R
reggieM
Guest
I know what you mean and it can take a long time to be healed of a deep hurt like that. The same has happened to me in the past.
For myself, I learned later why I was hurt so deeply by that name-calling and bitterness from others.
That might be a good thing to reflect on. Why did that hurt me so deeply? Why do I still get my hackles up and perhaps even want to be uncharitable towards the ultra-traditionalists?
It can help to see the hurt that is within the person who hurt you.
Ultra-trads have a deep wound within. As we all do, but they have a specific one.
Along with that wound is a tremendous fear of threat. That fear causes a lashing out at others.
As I viewed myself, it was so difficult to see ultra-traditionalists as vulnerable, needy human beings. Of course, they’ll present themselves as the opposite - the very best of all Catholics, knowing everything, rising above, judging all.
But we’re all sinners - sadly. They are sinners. We are also.
Humility teaches us. We don’t know everything in the Church. We don’t have all the answers. Only God does. In the end, we’re just simple human beings, seeking God with whatever tools He has given us.
We want to be the best. We want to be honored for our commitment to God (and that’s a good desire). But we also have to go before the priest and tell him our sins and that’s what brings us all back down to earth.
Does the ultra-trad confess that he has inflicted a very deep hurt on another?
Sadly, the answer is usually “no” because they believe that the hurt they give is “a good lesson” for everyone.
That is just darkness, though.
Question to the ultra-trad: Are you more holy than others?
Tough to answer.
R
reggieM
Guest
I notice that I am freely using this term and I should expect some opposition to that from the people who don’t like the word ‘modernist’ right?
I know it doesn’t work like that here.
O
OraLabora
Guest
It occurred to me that my own use of the term “ultra-traditionalist” was doing what I accuse others of doing. For that I apologize. Not sure at this point how I can address those folks who label “liberals and modernists” without myself labeling. At both ends of the spectrum, the problem is one and the same, intolerance of divergent viewpoints.I notice that I am freely using this term and I should expect some opposition to that from the people who don’t like the word ‘modernist’ right?
I know it doesn’t work like that here.
For now I’ll say “Catholics intolerant of opposing viewpoints”. At least until I slip up again
Maybe the rest of us can call ourselves “Catholics caught in the middle…”
S
steve_b
Guest
Just for clarification,
Is the pastor’s removal because
*]of the distribution of said materials, and he did nothing?
*]or he tried to stop or remove said materials and was removed because of that.
- Status