D
Dr.Bombay
Guest
To quote…somebody??? “I wouldn’t join a club that would have me as a member.”perhaps a bit tacky… but that’s beside the point.
My guess is that no one asked you to join yet.
- Status
A
AMDG1
Guest
Nope, not really. The belief was that there was some duplication in the TLM (a point that can be debated but I personally agree that there was duplication in parts of the Mass as well as “unnecessary” components…again, that’s debatable but my opinion only of course). The Pauline Mass was supposed to simplify/modernize the old prayers. I don’t believe there was any “preamble” to VC2 that talked about making the priesthood universal or returning to a “purer” form of Christianity (that would have been tantamount to the RCC acknowledging that simpler or “purer” protestant style services were more “authentic”).
A
AMDG1
Guest
20-30 years? Ugh…I may be dead by then. By the way…I’m originally from the archdiocese of NY but am now in the midwest and I notice that out here things are more “progressive”. Some of what I experience here would never fly in the NYC metro area. May be that there’s more competition with the evangelicals (of which there are a lot of here too). We seem to have a lot of converts (which I suppose is a good thing) but I have this nagging feeling that some of what is done during Mass may be intended to make the new recruits feel more comfortable (i.e., like they’re still kinda in a protestant church). Just a hunch…Welcome to the fray
I keep saying it - you can find a contemporary Mass just 5 minutes away, but if you want to find a Mass with valid, traditional components, you will be driving a long way.
I’m very glad to see an entire slew of young, orthodox seminarians, all learning Latin enthusiastically, celebrating ad orientem when they get the chance, etc.
I do believe there will be a gradual shift as time goes on to more traditional celebrations. We won’t be living on the frontier any longer. However, it may take another 20-30 years to see more traditional Masses in such a way that we can hop in the car and run down the street the way the contemporaries and progressives can today.
S
Sean_O_L
Guest
AMDG1 wrote:
Didjano that, in some parts of Europe, it took up to 100 years to fully implement the Decrees and reforms of the Council of Trent?
Counting, 100…99…98…
And THAT might be a conservative estimate!
Didjano that, in some parts of Europe, it took up to 100 years to fully implement the Decrees and reforms of the Council of Trent?
Counting, 100…99…98…
L
Lux_et_veritas
Guest
Sean O L:
I’m thinking it could take many years for these seminarians to become pastors. They are already making a mark. Some knewly ordained celebrate Masses ad orientem, in Latin, in separate private Masses, if they cannot do them publicly.
I agree that 20-30 is a conservative number. I’ll probably be buried before I can see more parishes offering traditional worship and homilies only 5 minutes from home…unless I move closer to one.
I’m thinking it could take many years for these seminarians to become pastors. They are already making a mark. Some knewly ordained celebrate Masses ad orientem, in Latin, in separate private Masses, if they cannot do them publicly.
B
bear06
Guest
I have read enough of his tirades on his website. One thing for example, he asserts early mass was facing the people, but that flies oin the face of much scholarship, since from the eraly days of the church, the priest led the conregation in prayer towrds the East. On his blog, he comes across as quite arrogant, I remeber once he dismissed the book Spirt of the Liturgy and he implied he was a better liturgical scholar than Ratzinger. Again, I know the SSPX can be less than pastoral, but the manner than I Shawn McIlhenny has acted tells me he is a very bitter man who can not let it go. I just do not have the time to list all the distortions he had on his website.
QUOTE]
OK, I asked Shawn for a response to your accusations and here’s what he said and gave me permission to post.
.
Assuming for a moment that the last part of the statement was accurate, what would be the problem with disagreeing with the conclusions of Joseph Ratzinger the theologian??? Is there some binding nature to the theological and historical conclusions of Joseph Ratzinger that I am unaware of and that this person (whomever they are) could enlighten me on.
Virtually all of my sources are easy to document by going to the live links provided. While it is limiting to try to use as many web-based sources as possible, one advantage is that it makes fact checking my work quite easy. If I was trying to pull a flim flam, it would be pretty senseless of me to give critics easy access to the sources I drew on to formulate my theories. But (of course) if I was unconcerned about being “checked up on”, then my approach makes good sense.
That point aside though, if I am really as guilty of “as many historical distortions as possible”, then this person should be able to make quite a list. But as you noted, they refused to do so and that is because to make a list would make put them in a position of being accountable for their statements. It is easy to say that so and so makes “errors” and “distortions” but not so easy to back up such assertions with points you pro-offer to be subjected to legitimate scrutiny. I have almost never made an accusation of that sort against anyone without copiously backing up my words: as a result, not a few have said that I write too much in that regard. Nonetheless, as I see it 'tis better to overdocument than underdocument. The bottom line is, they can put up or…well…you know the rest
Tirades??? Specifics would be nice. Again, talk is cheap. My tonality is and has been so rarely bitter in the past several years that it leads me to believe this person is lying through their teeth. I have not publicly written on a subject that I have not backed up with arguments and solid sources very often the so-called “traditionalist” stuff is no exception to that rule.
. What I said initially was that in the early church, there was not the same emphasis on facing east during prayer throughout the universal church. That tradition took a while to become universal and history demonstrates this adequately enough for those who delve into it (something that people such as my critics do with about the frequency of an ice age but I digress).
However, I also had a shifting in my view to some extent on that issue and noted it when revising the work the critic refers to in late 02-early 03 in one of the very few new parts written for the new edition of that writing:
continued…
B
bear06
Guest
continued…
Priest Facing Towards the People:
Originally this writer treated the subject about to be discussed in a more flippant manner then he should have. Part of the reason perhaps was the sheer disgust at the manifold excuses made by self-styled ‘traditionalists’ to justify their schismatic activities or tendencies. Part of the reason perhaps was that natural tendency to swing towards the opposing extreme that someone who undergoes a paradigm shift of radical proportions philosophically is naturally prone to. Nonetheless, the subject of orientation during prayer was perhaps the strongest point argued against this writer’s treatment of the subject of the liturgy. (By some of those who otherwise critiqued the work in ways that were indicative that they had not actually digested the full import of the arguments set forth.) Suffice to say, though this element was overlooked in the previous revision of the original version, an attempt to rectify it to some extent will be made here.
While at bottom this is a matter of liturgical policy and not a doctrine of the faith, the custom of the priest facing East was a practice that with all likelihood was crystallized as a norm around the late fourth-early fifth centuries. Much was made by this author that this was not a norm that was practised everywhere and even at the time of Trent this was not a uniform practice in all places of the world. It was nonetheless normative and this needs to be asserted before the subject can be looked at with the carefulness that it deserves.
To start with, the self-styled ‘traditionalists’ needs to ask themselves if we worship God in a fixed place as the Jews did in Jerusalem or if God is worshipped in spirit and in truth, neither of which can be put into a space or given a “direction” as we understand direction to be. We do not worship God in any one fixed place for God is spirit (cf. John 5:21-24). Likewise, the direction of the priest during mass - facing towards the people or facing away from them - is hardly relevant in the sense of being an essential of liturgical worship that renders the liturgy in any sense invalid. As long as the attention is on Him who is being worshipped, the direction of the priest fundamentally does not matter.
After all, if the priest and congregation facing towards one another in any way resulted in a danger of people “worshipping one another” (as Cardinal Ratzinger has claimed in a work he wrote as a private theologian) then logically one could counter with the assertion that a priest who faced the wall at Mass was in danger of “worshipping the wall”!!! And with tabernacles on the altar being a predominant custom of the recent past ( i.e. post-Reformation period) did our ancestors worship walls for seventeen centuries??? Of course not.
This is not to make light of the ad orientem position (as it is called) but to point to the fact that even poor arguments will be buttressed to support a position that a person takes as a governing presupposition in their argumentation. Cardinal Ratzinger is on much stronger ground when he asserts that “whenever possible, we should definitely take up again the apostolic tradition of facing the east, both in the building of churches and in the celebration of the liturgy”. It has also been cogently argued that the “liturgical east” can be achieved in any church. (By the priest facing the crucifix during the eucharisitic portion of the Mass: for Christ Himself is the true east.) Such a move would transcend any design or orientation that a given church building has. It would also signify a transition in focus at the most sacred part of the sacred liturgy. Arguments can be made for either posture and this writer is of the view that the difference could be split by a revision of the rubrics in both rites of Mass. This way the Liturgy of the Word in both rites would be directed towards the congregation.
With the Tridentine liturgy the reiteration of the Epistle and Gospel in Latin then in the vernacular would be eliminated - and all reading from the Epistle through to the Gospel would be read from the pulpit followed by the Sermon. (And after the Sermon things would go back to the ad orientum posture.) With the Pauline liturgy it would retain its present orientation except for the Liturgy of the Eucharist - at least from the point of the Sanctus onward - where the priest and the people would face either East or the crucifix signifying the East. The orientation would revert back to the pre-Sanctus form after the congregation had received communion for both the announcements and the final blessing/dismissal. Such a “split” if you will would be a Solomon-like compromise which would retain the best of both orientations.
continued…
Priest Facing Towards the People:
Originally this writer treated the subject about to be discussed in a more flippant manner then he should have. Part of the reason perhaps was the sheer disgust at the manifold excuses made by self-styled ‘traditionalists’ to justify their schismatic activities or tendencies. Part of the reason perhaps was that natural tendency to swing towards the opposing extreme that someone who undergoes a paradigm shift of radical proportions philosophically is naturally prone to. Nonetheless, the subject of orientation during prayer was perhaps the strongest point argued against this writer’s treatment of the subject of the liturgy. (By some of those who otherwise critiqued the work in ways that were indicative that they had not actually digested the full import of the arguments set forth.) Suffice to say, though this element was overlooked in the previous revision of the original version, an attempt to rectify it to some extent will be made here.
While at bottom this is a matter of liturgical policy and not a doctrine of the faith, the custom of the priest facing East was a practice that with all likelihood was crystallized as a norm around the late fourth-early fifth centuries. Much was made by this author that this was not a norm that was practised everywhere and even at the time of Trent this was not a uniform practice in all places of the world. It was nonetheless normative and this needs to be asserted before the subject can be looked at with the carefulness that it deserves.
To start with, the self-styled ‘traditionalists’ needs to ask themselves if we worship God in a fixed place as the Jews did in Jerusalem or if God is worshipped in spirit and in truth, neither of which can be put into a space or given a “direction” as we understand direction to be. We do not worship God in any one fixed place for God is spirit (cf. John 5:21-24). Likewise, the direction of the priest during mass - facing towards the people or facing away from them - is hardly relevant in the sense of being an essential of liturgical worship that renders the liturgy in any sense invalid. As long as the attention is on Him who is being worshipped, the direction of the priest fundamentally does not matter.
After all, if the priest and congregation facing towards one another in any way resulted in a danger of people “worshipping one another” (as Cardinal Ratzinger has claimed in a work he wrote as a private theologian) then logically one could counter with the assertion that a priest who faced the wall at Mass was in danger of “worshipping the wall”!!! And with tabernacles on the altar being a predominant custom of the recent past ( i.e. post-Reformation period) did our ancestors worship walls for seventeen centuries??? Of course not.
This is not to make light of the ad orientem position (as it is called) but to point to the fact that even poor arguments will be buttressed to support a position that a person takes as a governing presupposition in their argumentation. Cardinal Ratzinger is on much stronger ground when he asserts that “whenever possible, we should definitely take up again the apostolic tradition of facing the east, both in the building of churches and in the celebration of the liturgy”. It has also been cogently argued that the “liturgical east” can be achieved in any church. (By the priest facing the crucifix during the eucharisitic portion of the Mass: for Christ Himself is the true east.) Such a move would transcend any design or orientation that a given church building has. It would also signify a transition in focus at the most sacred part of the sacred liturgy. Arguments can be made for either posture and this writer is of the view that the difference could be split by a revision of the rubrics in both rites of Mass. This way the Liturgy of the Word in both rites would be directed towards the congregation.
With the Tridentine liturgy the reiteration of the Epistle and Gospel in Latin then in the vernacular would be eliminated - and all reading from the Epistle through to the Gospel would be read from the pulpit followed by the Sermon. (And after the Sermon things would go back to the ad orientum posture.) With the Pauline liturgy it would retain its present orientation except for the Liturgy of the Eucharist - at least from the point of the Sanctus onward - where the priest and the people would face either East or the crucifix signifying the East. The orientation would revert back to the pre-Sanctus form after the congregation had received communion for both the announcements and the final blessing/dismissal. Such a “split” if you will would be a Solomon-like compromise which would retain the best of both orientations.
continued…
B
bear06
Guest
continued…
Nonetheless, until such a time comes to pass (if it ever does), it bears noting that either orientation is valid and this point does not sustain itself as a valid impediment against the Pauline liturgy. [Excerpt from A Prescription Against ‘Traditionalism’ --Part V (c. 2000 rev. 2003)]
That is about 75% of all I have ever written on this subject over the years right there. Furthermore the claim of what I have said “fly[ing] in the face of much scholarship”, well, it would depend on what “scholarship” he is referring to. There is a lot of very poor scholarship out there (or at least scholarship of a controverted nature) and radical critics such as this individual inexorably tend towards the questionable stuff if not the quackish hack so-called “scholarship” which is commonly circulated in most so-called “traditionalist” circles…and yes, I could note some examples here if not for lack of time. But the burden of proof is always on the one making accusations so without specific examples being noted by the critic, I see no reason not to view his assertion as just another unsubstantiated statement of the sort which are unfortunately quite common in those circles.
Now of course, even if he could present good sources, the latter often conflict with other sources of similar or sometimes better quality. The truth is, this matter is not as cut and dried as many who indulge in the fantasy of “completeness” in the confessional scholarship of the counter-reformation period often naively presume. But enough on that matter for now.
continued…
Nonetheless, until such a time comes to pass (if it ever does), it bears noting that either orientation is valid and this point does not sustain itself as a valid impediment against the Pauline liturgy. [Excerpt from A Prescription Against ‘Traditionalism’ --Part V (c. 2000 rev. 2003)]
That is about 75% of all I have ever written on this subject over the years right there. Furthermore the claim of what I have said “fly[ing] in the face of much scholarship”, well, it would depend on what “scholarship” he is referring to. There is a lot of very poor scholarship out there (or at least scholarship of a controverted nature) and radical critics such as this individual inexorably tend towards the questionable stuff if not the quackish hack so-called “scholarship” which is commonly circulated in most so-called “traditionalist” circles…and yes, I could note some examples here if not for lack of time. But the burden of proof is always on the one making accusations so without specific examples being noted by the critic, I see no reason not to view his assertion as just another unsubstantiated statement of the sort which are unfortunately quite common in those circles.
Now of course, even if he could present good sources, the latter often conflict with other sources of similar or sometimes better quality. The truth is, this matter is not as cut and dried as many who indulge in the fantasy of “completeness” in the confessional scholarship of the counter-reformation period often naively presume. But enough on that matter for now.
Confidence in one’s views can at times appear as arrogance. I am a fairly well rounded person viz. my knowledge on many subjects and am hardly going to apologize for that or for expressing confidence in most of my public statements. (Naturally my tone is less bold in proportion to my understanding of some issues but that should be expected.)
That is a bald faced lie…I did nothing of the sort.
I never said nor implied this at all…it is another bald faced lie. However, my respect for Joseph Ratzinger the theologian and scholar does not mean that I accept uncritically everything he has to say on those matters. If Joseph Ratzinger took that attitude in his early days, he would never have involved himself with the ressourcement movement since the latter was for a while under suspicion by curial authorities.
continued…
B
bear06
Guest
almost done…
But Joseph Ratzinger quite clearly did not accept the curialists views uncritically nor should he have. And I (of course) do not accept uncritically the views of Joseph Ratzinger the liturgical scholar, historian, or theologian in like manner. Those who have a problem with this should enlighten themselves as to what the role of a philosopher, historian, theologian, etc. happens to be in the church. That is another area that in my experience people such as this critic tend to be close to uniformly ignorant of and it does not take much usually to prove this.
Indeed, people such as this critic would do well to read the authoritative Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian published by the CDF in 1990.{1} The development of the text was supervised (if not in at least some parts of it actually written) by then-prefect Joseph Ratzinger. It was signed by him in his capacity as cardinal prefect and Pope John Paul II approved its contents in forma specifica which means he made the conclusions of the text his own. It is with those guidelines in mind that I on occasion take issue with certain points which are not even matters of doctrine or binding discipline{2} and if the proper procedures are followed with the latter, then it is absurd to expect more on matters not pertaining to doctrine or matters of binding discipline.
Now then, if Joseph Ratzinger in his capacity as Pope Benedict XVI does make some of those positions he enunciated matters of authoritative liturgical directives, then I will accept them with the proper disposition of mind. Until then, there is no reason whatsoever to submit my mind, will, and intellect to them in the slightest if I am aware of information or have derived through study certain elements which do not countenance those views and happen to find them more probable than the views enunciated by Joseph Ratzinger the liturgical scholar or historian.
Now of course this obnoxious critic may not mind accepting uncritically the views or opinions of others but I do. If it is not required by the Magisterium (and it is not) then who the hell is he to expect it of anyone or be critical of anyone for not rendering it to whatever sources or viewpoints tickle his fancy??? At the very least, I provide my readers with numerous high-quality sources for their perusal to see many of the sources from which I have drawn on in formulating my views on various issues. But enough on that matter for now.
Notes:
{1} Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian
{2} The Instruction was mainly concerned with those matters but the principles it outlines applies to all kinds of scholastic inquiry in the Church.
But Joseph Ratzinger quite clearly did not accept the curialists views uncritically nor should he have. And I (of course) do not accept uncritically the views of Joseph Ratzinger the liturgical scholar, historian, or theologian in like manner. Those who have a problem with this should enlighten themselves as to what the role of a philosopher, historian, theologian, etc. happens to be in the church. That is another area that in my experience people such as this critic tend to be close to uniformly ignorant of and it does not take much usually to prove this.
Indeed, people such as this critic would do well to read the authoritative Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian published by the CDF in 1990.{1} The development of the text was supervised (if not in at least some parts of it actually written) by then-prefect Joseph Ratzinger. It was signed by him in his capacity as cardinal prefect and Pope John Paul II approved its contents in forma specifica which means he made the conclusions of the text his own. It is with those guidelines in mind that I on occasion take issue with certain points which are not even matters of doctrine or binding discipline{2} and if the proper procedures are followed with the latter, then it is absurd to expect more on matters not pertaining to doctrine or matters of binding discipline.
Now then, if Joseph Ratzinger in his capacity as Pope Benedict XVI does make some of those positions he enunciated matters of authoritative liturgical directives, then I will accept them with the proper disposition of mind. Until then, there is no reason whatsoever to submit my mind, will, and intellect to them in the slightest if I am aware of information or have derived through study certain elements which do not countenance those views and happen to find them more probable than the views enunciated by Joseph Ratzinger the liturgical scholar or historian.
Now of course this obnoxious critic may not mind accepting uncritically the views or opinions of others but I do. If it is not required by the Magisterium (and it is not) then who the hell is he to expect it of anyone or be critical of anyone for not rendering it to whatever sources or viewpoints tickle his fancy??? At the very least, I provide my readers with numerous high-quality sources for their perusal to see many of the sources from which I have drawn on in formulating my views on various issues. But enough on that matter for now.
Notes:
{1} Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian
{2} The Instruction was mainly concerned with those matters but the principles it outlines applies to all kinds of scholastic inquiry in the Church.
J
JNB
Guest
I see Mr McIlheny has responsed, and as he usually does, he twists facts and gives more heat than light, much like what Limbaugh does when he talks about economics on his radio show(as in spinning facts and not digging in deeper to understand what is behind such numbers), that said, here again are my problems with Mr. McIheny.
1.) Again as per my link to his site, he dismisses the severe rupture to the entire historical tradition of the church, not just in the west but the universal church as a whole. Also of note, none of the churches in the East have this practice.
2.) On eucharistic ministers, in extreme cases, acolytes such as St. Justin Martyr, and the patron saint of altar boys, St. Tarsicius(who may have been a Deacon), were used, but acolytes were again not laity, they were in the clerical state. Again, none of the churches in the east use laity for ministers of the Eucharist.
3.) Of course many diocese of the early church has communion in the hand, but there is no proof even then the practice was universal, and St. Cyril of Jerusalem method that he described of taking communion in the hand was far more reverent than it is today, plus women who recieved in this method had to use veils on their hand. One has to ask why did communion in the hand largely fall out of practices in the universal church by the 500s and why again, only the latin rite in the universal church practices this
Here is a good link
catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp
4.) I am glad he is rethinking his opinion on facing the liturgical East. That said, again in the eraly church it was universal, and to this day it is universal except for the Latin rite(and the heavily Latinized Maronite rite).
5.) Lastly, even if somthing was done in the early church, should it be done today? Lest we forget that the early church suffered from various heresies that almost tore it apart, and even in some cases caused civil wars. As the understanding of tyhe faith grew deeper, the liturgy evolved in an organic manner to reflect the deeper understanding.
Like I said, I am not in principle against the Novus Ordo, and if it is celebrated in the manner the Grotto in Detroit celebrates it, it is clearly in line with tradition(In the NO is celebrated in latin, Ad Orientem, using the Confetior and the Roman Canon one could argue it is fairly close to the pre Gallacian influence Roman rite with the exception of the fabricated offertory that is used today).
Again, what I am against is what Mr McIlheny does, and that is take what happened historically out of context, and lead people astray. Also of note in his e mail, he called me far worse thing that I called him, of course that is his arrogance showing though. With the 5 questions I have, he has not provided any satisfactory awnsers at all.
1.) Again as per my link to his site, he dismisses the severe rupture to the entire historical tradition of the church, not just in the west but the universal church as a whole. Also of note, none of the churches in the East have this practice.
2.) On eucharistic ministers, in extreme cases, acolytes such as St. Justin Martyr, and the patron saint of altar boys, St. Tarsicius(who may have been a Deacon), were used, but acolytes were again not laity, they were in the clerical state. Again, none of the churches in the east use laity for ministers of the Eucharist.
3.) Of course many diocese of the early church has communion in the hand, but there is no proof even then the practice was universal, and St. Cyril of Jerusalem method that he described of taking communion in the hand was far more reverent than it is today, plus women who recieved in this method had to use veils on their hand. One has to ask why did communion in the hand largely fall out of practices in the universal church by the 500s and why again, only the latin rite in the universal church practices this
Here is a good link
catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp
4.) I am glad he is rethinking his opinion on facing the liturgical East. That said, again in the eraly church it was universal, and to this day it is universal except for the Latin rite(and the heavily Latinized Maronite rite).
5.) Lastly, even if somthing was done in the early church, should it be done today? Lest we forget that the early church suffered from various heresies that almost tore it apart, and even in some cases caused civil wars. As the understanding of tyhe faith grew deeper, the liturgy evolved in an organic manner to reflect the deeper understanding.
Like I said, I am not in principle against the Novus Ordo, and if it is celebrated in the manner the Grotto in Detroit celebrates it, it is clearly in line with tradition(In the NO is celebrated in latin, Ad Orientem, using the Confetior and the Roman Canon one could argue it is fairly close to the pre Gallacian influence Roman rite with the exception of the fabricated offertory that is used today).
Again, what I am against is what Mr McIlheny does, and that is take what happened historically out of context, and lead people astray. Also of note in his e mail, he called me far worse thing that I called him, of course that is his arrogance showing though. With the 5 questions I have, he has not provided any satisfactory awnsers at all.
B
bear06
Guest
I’ll see if I can get him to come on and debate this with you. Can I point out that you are spelling his name wrong though?
J
JNB
Guest
This is a message board, not some power point presenation in front of CFOs trying to get funding for a project, so I just do not care if I mispell anything or not.
bear06:
B
bear06
Guest
It’s common courtesy to get somebody’s name spelled right.
- Status