B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
What specific comment? I started talking about the liturgy because I was trying to guess at what you were talking about as topics even in a single thread can jump around.
- Status
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
I’m not asking for documented proof precisely because I don’t think one can document what was going on in people’s hearts and minds. I was responding to this comment of yours:
Since we don’t know what is going on in people’s hearts and minds we don’t know that too many Catholics were just “going through the motions.” And that has been an issue with the new liturgy where it seems as if the people in the pew have to be “doing something” (active), i.e. speaking, standing, sitting, shaking hands, etc.–something we can see, or else they really aren’t doing much of anything and are just going through the motions.
I certainly agree that Modernism has been a problem for the Church for many years. Pius X pushed it underground somewhat with things like his Oath against Modernism and Pius IX helped with the Syllabus of Errors. Yet I would say that Vatican II, however well intentioned it might have been, did not deal with Modernism effectively. In fact I don’t think it was really intended to deal with Modernism at all. Yet I do think releasing documents written in a more open ended and ambiguous way at that time helped Modernists take advantage of the Council and that is one reason Modernism has been so rampant in the Church after Vatican II.
J
Just_1_hr_a_wk
Guest
What did you respond to me with ‘I never said that’ (or words to same effect)??
Ta ta – our posts were in pretty rapid succession - there was no jumping around except for what you introduced.
R
rien
Guest
I think this post is evidence, like the TLM or it, it is devisive. We have yet to see how this will play out. It ain’t playing in SF so far. Quinnand Levada were suspicious of the TLM. The current bishop may be too.
The resistance is strong and especially in Englamd and parts of Europe. The response from the faithful has been mostly - meh…
In 30 years the MP could well be seen as just a blip in church history. Much like JP2’s fidelity oath for Catholic universities. That ended up being a dead letter and is all but forgotten.
The resistance is strong and especially in Englamd and parts of Europe. The response from the faithful has been mostly - meh…
In 30 years the MP could well be seen as just a blip in church history. Much like JP2’s fidelity oath for Catholic universities. That ended up being a dead letter and is all but forgotten.
D
DixiesFinest
Guest
That interesting, because at St Patrick’s Catholic Church in North Little Rock (indult Mass) the numbers attending the TLM have been growing tremendously. St Mary’s (nearby also holds TLM) was completely packed for the Midnight Vigil.A priest who is a resident at our parish wrote in a letter to our county paper claiming that the religion writer for our paper was right about the TLM being allowed more. He also stated correctly how that a local SSPX group was not in connection with Rome. But where I disagreed was where he cited some poll saying that more people preferred the pauline rite and that “relatively few” prferred to attend the TLM. The same priest has also claimed multiple times in our parish bulletin that few people understood latin so that is why they got rid of the TLM.Does it ever end? Maybe few people actually prefer it because many never experienced it.
P
pnewton
Guest
If it does, it does. There is still no excuse for not honoring what the Holy Father has said.
L
LarryRay
Guest
Gee, you really think so?! I’d have never guessed that Abp. Niederauer wasn’t a TLM booster.
Is the TLM really divisive? Again, it seems to me that this is more about FEAR of divisiveness than actual divisiveness. After all, how do they know that it will be divisive until it’s allowed to be tried? Frankly, I think that allowing the TLM will be the opposite of divisive. It will be INCLUSIVE (i.e., including traditionalists).
Some wonder why many traditionalists seem bitter. It’s no mystery. In any human society, a minority that is persistently disenfranchised, disdained, treated unfairly and ignored will become resentful.
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
Regardless, if what you were referring to was so clear, then when I ask you to clarify a comment you made, I expect you to do so.
A
ac_claire
Guest
This isn’t fair.
Nobody knows if he’s “thecoach”. There’s really no way to prove it, so he should get the benefit of the doubt.
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
It wasn’t divisive for hundreds of years was it?
So, what was introduced that has caused so much division? Hmmm…
This reminds me of an observation Fr. Brian Harrison once made in the book, “The Reform of the Reform?” by Fr. Thomas Kocik (Ignatius Press). Italics are his:
"In short, what we have witnessed in these thirty years has been a tragic polarization and fragmentation among Catholics, in regard to the liturgy. But while so many have been drawing swords either to defend or attack the post-conciliar changes in the rite of Mass, not many seem to have noticed that the very existence of such tension, bitterness, and division is about the most eloquent possible evidence that the liturgical reform introduced in the name of Vatican Council II has been seriously defective. What both liberals and conservatives often forget is the fact that, in the words of Saint Thomas Aquinas, "The Eucharist is the sacrament of the Church’s unity.
… The implications of this profound truth for the post-Vatican II liturgical reform seem to me very serious. If one of the main purposes of the eucharistic liturgy is to “renew, strengthen, and deepen” [CCC 1396] the unity of all Catholics in the one Mystical Body, then what are we to think of a reform that, whatever its positive results may have been, has also managed to provoke more discord, mutual alienation, and disunity than any officially introduced liturgical innovation in the entire history of the Church?
… Now, can the new rites be said to have promoted “unity” [Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC) no. 1] among believers, when we see more strife and disunity than ever in connection with the liturgy? It may be true that Catholics and Protestants now feel less divided than before, but not in the way the Council Fathers expected. They hoped that liturgical reform would help Protestants to become more Catholic in their thinking; but all that has happened is that Catholics have demonstrably become more Protestant in their thinking! The Vatican II Fathers, as we have just heard, hoped that a revised liturgy would be a means of “help[ing] to call all mankind into the Church’s fold” [SC, no. 1]. But how could anyone claim that this hope has been even partially fulfilled when in most countries rates of conversion to Catholicism have plummeted to an all-time low, priests and religious have abandoned their holy vocations in tens of thousands, innumerable other Catholics have given up the faith altogether, and of those who do still profess it, fewer than ever now attend Mass regularly?"
(pp. 154-157)
L
LarryRay
Guest
Wow, this guy absolutely nails it!
L
LRThunder
Guest
“Suspicious of the TLM.”
I find it amusing that some can be suspicious and/or outright reject the TLM and be in good standing and yet if the same tried to be suspicious or reject the current Mass, then they’re schismatics or sedavacantists.
The EF (TLM), like the current Mass, is a legitimate Mass. If some don’t like EF, they don’t have to go if it’s offered in their area. But one shouldn’t be suspicious or of a Mass that has been offered for centuries prior to the 1970’s or reject it as divisive.
I find it amusing that some can be suspicious and/or outright reject the TLM and be in good standing and yet if the same tried to be suspicious or reject the current Mass, then they’re schismatics or sedavacantists.
The EF (TLM), like the current Mass, is a legitimate Mass. If some don’t like EF, they don’t have to go if it’s offered in their area. But one shouldn’t be suspicious or of a Mass that has been offered for centuries prior to the 1970’s or reject it as divisive.
A
AlexV
Guest
The really significant year was 1974.
That year, Archbishop Annibale Bugnini…who was both smart and prescient…requested of Pope Paul VI that he issue a “Decree of Abrogation” for the 1962 Missal.
The request was denied.
The archbishop knew that the decree was needed to prevent someone (Benedict XVI!) from declaring that the 1962 Missal had never been abrogated.
Now mind you, Paul DID say that it was his “intention” that the 1970 Missal “supplant” the 1962. It is demonstrable that Paul did not see a future for 2 (competing) Missals in the same Rite.
But he was unwilling to declare the 1962 Missal abrogated. Some of his biographers would argue this perfectly illustrated his vacillating personality. But the record remains clear: he was explicitly asked, and he definitively said no.
Bugnini records in his memoirs that he knew this was problematic. He knew this opened the door to the argument that the 1970 Missal wasn’t binding or definitively required as the only acceptable Roman Rite Missal.
That year, Archbishop Annibale Bugnini…who was both smart and prescient…requested of Pope Paul VI that he issue a “Decree of Abrogation” for the 1962 Missal.
The request was denied.
The archbishop knew that the decree was needed to prevent someone (Benedict XVI!) from declaring that the 1962 Missal had never been abrogated.
Now mind you, Paul DID say that it was his “intention” that the 1970 Missal “supplant” the 1962. It is demonstrable that Paul did not see a future for 2 (competing) Missals in the same Rite.
But he was unwilling to declare the 1962 Missal abrogated. Some of his biographers would argue this perfectly illustrated his vacillating personality. But the record remains clear: he was explicitly asked, and he definitively said no.
Bugnini records in his memoirs that he knew this was problematic. He knew this opened the door to the argument that the 1970 Missal wasn’t binding or definitively required as the only acceptable Roman Rite Missal.
T
Tomster
Guest
Well said, Alex.
T
TMC
Guest
I agree with both of these statements. The Pope has said that the primary purpose in issuing the Ecclesia Dei was to foster unity. It is too bad that we have nonetheless insisted on viewng the liturgy as a source of disunity. I am not pointing fingers here, I am guilty of this, also, and I’ll try to do better.
We are blessed to have two forms of liturgy. My personal opinion is that the extraordinary form will be with us for many many years, but that it will never return to being the ordinary form of the liturgy, or ever be much more widely used than it is now. I could be wrong, and if I am that is fine. In the meantime we should celebrate the availability of both.
I know I may be in the minority on this, but I think that overall the bishops have done OK on implementation. It will be interesting to see what the forth-coming new guidance says. I suspect that both ‘sides’ will find things they like and dislike in it. That is usually the case.
P
pnewton
Guest
I am going to jump on a soapbox and expand on this a little.
Some bishops and priests have exchanged the wisdom of children for the folly of the world. They have forgotten their basic Sunday School lessons in all their learning. Instead of the simplicity of obedience and following God, they have allowed their thinking to cloud their judgement. In another thread talking about another archbishop on the opposite side of the spectrum, the example of Cardinal Ratzinger came up. The man did his job in obedience to John Paul II, even if he did not fully agree. God then took his efforts and is now using Pope Benedict as the instrument to guide the Church. He has earned more than a little benefit of the doubt.
The lessons of the Bible are still true today. God does not work by man blasting his way through obstacles. He needs us to obey and follow Him, then we free God up to move without our meddling. The examples are numerous: Gideon, Moses, David, Abraham, Daniel. Heck, just read the list in Hebrews. That writer was saying the same thing. We must have the faith of a child. These bishops on both extremes that think the know more than the Holy Father do not know squat. If they can not get the elementary things right, why should we have any confidence in their more complex judgements.
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
I’m not surprised the response has been “meh” in some areas. If there’s one area Catholics today are more ignorant of than their own Faith, it’s the liturgy. If there’s an area Catholics are more unformed in than catechesis, it’s the spirituality that comes from the shaping of good liturgical practice. Catholics today are more formed by superficial U.S. culture than anything substantive or traditional. No wonder the reaction of some.
I don’t think you are correct in your assessment as I think the TLM and the desire for it will always be here.
Yet, if the MP does become a “blip” isn’t there something tragic in all of this? That our normative liturgy becomes a liturgy formed by a committee rather than the liturgy which connects us to our ancestors in the faith and shaped their spiritual lives for centuries? What a tragedy if we no longer have access to that. Then it will be no wonder if we all become (as many already have) “American Catholics” with the the emphasis on “American” above all.
E
Eilish_Maura
Guest
In a word
no
no
L
LarryRay
Guest
Despite the wishful thinking of many, the motu proprio is not and will not be a mere blip. If for no other reason than vocations are booming in tradition-oriented seminaries, the TLM will continue to grow in the Western world. Some wish to pronounce Summorum Pontificum a failure before it’s even been mentioned (let alone implemented) in many dioceses. That’s ridiculous. Unlike after V2, change will not happen overnight this time. It’s going to take time. However, the generation of priests and bishops who came of age in the '60s and tend to fear and oppose the TLM isn’t going to be around forever. In 30 or 40 years, almost all of them will be gone. The leadership that will replace them will be very different and likely more open to tradition.
E
Eilish_Maura
Guest
Vocations are booming in 3rd world countries too.
Being a priest was often the best out for men in that kind of country who were ‘only good for the books’ as the old Irish would say.
[SIGN]Scouting IS Youth Ministry[/SIGN]
Being a priest was often the best out for men in that kind of country who were ‘only good for the books’ as the old Irish would say.
[SIGN]Scouting IS Youth Ministry[/SIGN]
- Status