Seminarians (parishioners) “traddy cliques”? Be careful. [Fr. Z]

[DustinsDad]

DD: What exactly is** the Vatican II vision? Would it be the “vision” as practiced by a Cardinal Kasper and Cardinal Mahoney - or more along the lines of the “vision” as practiced by ArchBishop Raymond Burke? Or are both “approaches” correct?

ncjohn: To most of the ones I am familiar with it makes no difference…

I’m sorry, the question is for you, since you referenced the “vision of Vatican II”.

I think the Church is still trying to figure out the vision, or more properly put, still figuring out what Vatican II actually said or taught. These battles aren’t just going on in the pews and seminaries - their going on in the upper levels of the hierarchy.

DD: What you see as bashing the Church, I’m sure the traditionalist minded folks (and seminarians) see as defending the Church - it all depends on how one views the current situation the Church is in. Is it a healthy robust “New Sprigtime” that requires all faithful Catholics to “get on board”? Or are we living in a deep and widespread crisis where the ongoing battle for souls ain’t goin’ so well - in which case inaction and complacency itself could be a sin of ommision?

ncjohn: SOME traditionalist minded folks do indeed see it that way. And the term “remnant Church” is often heard on their lips…

Well, such a situation would not exactly be without precedant in the history of the Church though. What if they are right and the “situation” is a bit worse than most believe?

…many “traditionalists” are not the least bit interested in simply getting the EF back. They will not be happy until they have their foot on the throat of the OF and see it gasping its last breath

That’s being a bit melodramatic I think - but certainly traditionalist concerns run a bit deeper than the mass - the mass is just the most central and the most visible…and probably the closest to “the heart”.

If, at the core of our beliefs, we still believe the same things (as we should), if the FAITH is the same in both “camps”, there should be little problem reconciling the situation.

If, however, the new lex orendi has changed the lex credendi of most folks and clergy of the Church - we may be in for some trying times ahead.

We shall see.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace,

So much to think about!? Who is running the parishes? Parishioners or the Ordained Priesthood? Is this Americanism to demand that particular ‘form of worship’? I’ve seen this in my parish “In the Spirit of Vatican II”. What exactly is this ‘spirit’? What does it mean?

Peace and God Bless.

 

[Genesis315]

Per the OP:

I think the issues presented in the blog article, and which I think are generally representative of a problem in the traditionalist movement, stem from a problem of contempt versus compassion.

I am reading a book by St. Alphonsus Liguori right now on the Incarnation and he makes this distinction very well (and anyone who knows him, knows he quoted a ton of other saints too!)–it was very indicting to myself and I also see it in the situation described in the OP. As the other seminarian points out, certain seminarians avoid the others and just stick to their little groups where they complain together. Having been around traditionalist communities and groups, I can definitely say this is not something confined to that seminary–as I said before, I too have been known to partake in it.

Granted, many of us have been mistreated or seen Our Lord mistreated and to react that way is very natural. But we are called to act supernaturally–and if this liturgy is what we say it is, it should enable us to do just that.

The problem is, that kind of behavior shows no compassion for those the “clique” sees as poor sinners. Whether we agree with their assessment or not, that is how they view those they are trying to avoid for whatever reason (fear of being hurt, of being “contaminated,” of being judged, etc.). But one inflamed with divine love does not act that way towards poor sinners.

Our Blessed Lord who came to heal poor sinners, dined with sinners in order to heal them. He did just go to the desert with His Apostles and do His own thing, complaining about said sinners. Nor did He stay in Heaven with his angels, turing their backs to the cesspool of sin below. No, He humbled Himself and came to serve poor sinners, showing mercy and compassion for them, even when they mistreated Him (especially when they mistreated Him!). In this way He brought about conversions sanctifying men with the flame of love.

A priest is called to be Christ to poor sinners. The behavior of the seminarians who continually engage in the behaviors in the OP are not exhibiting an aptitude to fulfill that requirement.

I’ve said this before, but the traditionalist movement is often one of its own enemies. Instead of giving people the image of the extraordinary form of the Mass as a rite of beauty which inflames the soul with Divine love, it is associated instead with contempt for others, a bitter heart, a holier-than-thou fringe mentality, and a life devoid of divine charity–and trust me, I have been just as guilty of these things on many occasions.

Because of this, as the OP points out, other good faithful Catholics are given a sense of apprehension about anyone “traditional.” We all know that the TLM can inflame us with divine love and compassion, especially as we experience the re-presentation of that most compassionate act of all, where Our Lord emptied Himself and suffered patiently without complaint, burning with love for those who hated Him most.

The key to spreading devotion and love of the extraordinary form is not to become cliquish, contemptuously separating ourselves from others–that will only drive others away. But rather we must be active in the life of the Church and the world, showing forth the fruits of the liturgy we love–no one lights a candle and puts it under a basket–becoming men of the beatitudes, inflamed with divine charity and compassion, without fear (because love casts out fear), following the way of Christ, the way of the Cross.

 

[Dempsey1919]

I’ve said this before, but the traditionalist movement is often one of its own enemies. Instead of giving people the image of the extraordinary form of the Mass as a rite of beauty which inflames the soul with Divine love, it is associated instead with contempt for others, a bitter heart, a holier-than-thou fringe mentality, and a life devoid of divine charity–and trust me, I have been just as guilty of these things on many occasions.

I understand what you are saying and I agree to a certain extent. However, the people who think that traditionalists are “bitter” are probably dissenters and liberals who don’t like the fact that traditionalists point out their heretical views. People who campaign for women priests and contraception would view traditionalists as “bitter” because we are opposed to this and are loyal to the teachings of the Church.

The key to spreading devotion and love of the extraordinary form is not to become cliquish, contemptuously separating ourselves from others–that will only drive others away. **But rather we must be active in the life of the Church and the world, showing forth the fruits of the liturgy we love–no one lights a candle and puts it under a basket–becoming men of the beatitudes, inflamed with divine charity and compassion, without fear (because love casts out fear), following the way of Christ, the way of the Cross.
**

Completely agree with what I have put in bold. However, I don’t know about the seperation part. Is it wrong to stay away from people who are dissidents and liberals? I have stopped going to my University chaplaincy for this reason. I don’t want to be around people who promote heretical beliefs. I find it very irritating to be around “Catholics” who support gay marriage and artificial birth control.

What are we supposed to do? It doesn’t matter what we say or do, they will never agree with orthodox Catholic teaching concerning these things. They want to change the teachings and dogmas to suit them. I’m an orthodox traditionalist Catholic and I feel uncomfortable around liberals and dissenters. When I go to religious places, I want to be around people who are 100% loyal to the Magisterium. Furthermore, the liberal-minded Catholics seem dead set against the Tridentine Mass and are always quick to let me know that they “don’t like the Latin Mass”. This irritates me because I never say anything against the Pauline Mass.

 

[Sure]

Since the Spirit of Vatican II was brought up…I think that clearly the REAL authentic spirit of Vatican II is seen in the actions of men like Pope Benedict, Archbishop Burke, Bishop Bruskewitz, Bishop Finn, Bishop Morlino, …the list goes on.

It is the FALSE spirit of Vatican II that brings us guitar masses, felt wall-hangings, dancing and the LA Cathedral. Make no mistake, the reform of the reform is well underway. A number of GOOD seminaries are growing and the newly appointed bishops are nearly always very very solid.

The “crisis” was 20 years ago and it began ending as new orthodox bishops were appointed and seminaries were shut down or “cleaned”. It will take years for the last vestiges of the 70’s and 80’s upheaval to be repaired, but the repair has at least begun.

 

[HenryV]

I understand what you are saying and I agree to a certain extent. However, the people who think that traditionalists are “bitter” are probably dissenters and liberals who don’t like the fact that traditionalists point out their heretical views. People who campaign for women priests and contraception would view traditionalists as “bitter” because we are opposed to this and are loyal to the teachings of the Church.

Completely agree with what I have put in bold. However, I don’t know about the seperation part. Is it wrong to stay away from people who are dissidents and liberals? I have stopped going to my University chaplaincy for this reason. I don’t want to be around people who promote heretical beliefs. I find it very irritating to be around “Catholics” who support gay marriage and artificial birth control.

What are we supposed to do? It doesn’t matter what we say or do, they will never agree with orthodox Catholic teaching concerning these things. They want to change the teachings and dogmas to suit them. I’m an orthodox traditionalist Catholic and I feel uncomfortable around liberals and dissenters. When I go to religious places, I want to be around people who are 100% loyal to the Magisterium. Furthermore, the liberal-minded Catholics seem dead set against the Tridentine Mass and are always quick to let me know that they “don’t like the Latin Mass”. This irritates me because I never say anything against the Pauline Mass.

“We have to cook the truth in charity until it tastes sweet.”
St Francis of Sales.

“Charity endures everything” St Paul

 

[otjm]

I think what will happen is that the younger Priests might start to celebrate the Traditional Mass without permission from, consulting with or even telling the Liturgical director, the readers, the extraordinary ministers and everybody else who really does have an agenda. Will there be an outcry? You better believe it. The hordes of extraordinary ministers will howl, the readers will howl, the cantors will howl, the music directors will howl, the Parish Liturgical Directors will howl and all the other assorted hangers on will scream bloody murder. In fact, some may even schism off into their own little groups, although I truly don’t believe they will last too long… I really don’t believe that the Pauline Mass has a lot of staying power as did the Traditional.

Once the outcry has died down I would wager that most people will still be in the pews still trying to contend with life and follow Christ.

I would not be the least bit surprised if your scenario happened. and I would not be the least bit surprised, if the uproar that was created, would not result in invoking Article 5, Section 1: “…to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding dicord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.”.

There are two things to remember: 1) a priest serves at the pleasure of his bishop; and 2) the power of the purse is far greater than a whole lot of letters written. I would suspect that if a priest were to decide on their own to do what you suggest, that the economic backlash would be louder than the uproar of words. Oh, to be a fly on the wall and watch that donnybrook. I have no doubt someone would appeal to Rome for sanctions, and not being a betting man, I know where I would put my money.

You seem to be presuming that the people in positions you identify are the driving force behind the OF; I would grant that they are sometimes the cause of the abberations. But I think you mistake how widely the OF is appreciated and loved. To Presume that the people in the pews really don’t want the OF is to make an interesting wger. Time will tell, and it is going to be in years, not weeks or months.

I don’t think that there are too many priests around with enough brass to simply take the approach you are suggesting if they do not feel that a large number of parishoners will agree with their direction; but then, stranger things have happened in the Church.

I think it is much more likely, if the priest feels that certain people fulfilling the functions you describe are too “out there”, that he simply would remove them. No more butterflies around the altar; no more liturgical chaos.

But then, we’ll get to see, won’t we?

 

[Cathryn]

Again, I speak for the local scene as I am not widely traveled. But I truly do wonder what will happen, for instance, if one of the “traddy cliques” seminarians were to pass under the radar of Moutn Angel Seminary to be ordained, and then sent to a parish around here that simply is showing no interest in the EF. Repeatedly, I hear the comments that all we have to do is bring it on and there will be SRO. But I look around, and I am nust not seeing it. I went to St Patrick’s in Portland when it was offering the OF in Latin on Saturday night, with a schola which sounded as if they picked from the best professional voices in Portland (granted, not a major metropolis, although it has such pretentions). It wasn’t a bushel-bsket Mass; it was in the Sentinal and not at all hard to get to, and it was not SRO or even close in the times I took my RCIa groups there. And while St Briggita’s has the EF by indult, it isn’t being exactly overwhelmed either (although I will grant it is farthe to get to, agian it is not a complicated drive). So I don’t see the days nunmbered around here. As I say, the silence seems deafening. I would think that if a “traddy cliqu” were to be ordained and inserted into one of the parishes, he might find himself facing a parish that has a very different concept of spirituality than he envisions, and not one of Barney blessings, radical homosexual sash wearers, or Mother Earth worshipers. Just people who prefer definitely the OF. There are literally hundreds of thousands of them out there, and they are not liberals. The are just people contending with life and trying to follow Christ.

The Church can send this hypothetical seminarian and future priest to Brookings, Oregon. There are quite of few of us that are going over the border to Crescent City, CA (Santa Rosa Diocese) to get to an Extraordinary Rite daily Mass. The priest there has been trained, but hasn’t even started it yet and Oregon parishoners are coming to his Ordinary Rite Mass that has liberal use of latin. Advent he is starting the Extraordinary Rite Mass daily.

 

[Pious_Mat]

We need to keep in mind that first of all, many Dioceses are offering EF instruction in their seminaries, and that some of the most popular seminaries are what we used to call indult seminaries, the Institute of Christ the King and Our Lady of Guadalupe. Within a generation, the number of priests who can say the EF will increase exponentially–that will still only be a minority of them, but far more than ten years ago.

Also, a hundred years from now, I doubt there will be very man lukewarm Catholics left, at least if the secularization trend continues. This means that the percentage of Catholics wanting the EF will be considerably higher. Think of the growth of the EF in this way if it helps–the Church is changing its approach to better meet the needs of the faithful.

I wish Cardinal Bugnini were around to hear that last part!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

We need to keep in mind that first of all, many Dioceses are offering EF instruction in their seminaries, and that some of the most popular seminaries are what we used to call indult seminaries, the Institute of Christ the King and Our Lady of Guadalupe. Within a generation, the number of priests who can say the EF will increase exponentially–that will still only be a minority of them, but far more than ten years ago.

Also, a hundred years from now, I doubt there will be very man lukewarm Catholics left, at least if the secularization trend continues. This means that the percentage of Catholics wanting the EF will be considerably higher. Think of the growth of the EF in this way if it helps–the Church is changing its approach to better meet the needs of the faithful.

I wish Cardinal Bugnini were around to hear that last part!

While you’re at seminary, ask them to give you a hand with A) history (the Archbishop wasn’t a Cardinal) and B) the charity necessary to be a priest of Jesus Christ. Mockery as a tool of evangelism or catechesis is questionable. But then, few “traditionalsits” think twice about spreading what is possibly the calumny that he was a Mason, despite the Holy See’s vehement denial.

 

[JDK]

…Also, a hundred years from now, I doubt there will be very man lukewarm Catholics left, at least if the secularization trend continues. This means that the percentage of Catholics wanting the EF will be considerably higher. Think of the growth of the EF in this way if it helps–the Church is changing its approach to better meet the needs of the faithful.

I wish Cardinal Bugnini were around to hear that last part!

Are you assuming that those who prefer the EF are necessarily more pious than those who prefer the NO? Seems like a very condescending attitude.

I agree with you about the secularization trend, but I don’t think the NO form is responsible for less attendance at church. If we are not even able to properly catechize the BASICS of the faith at this point, how can you envision a huge trend toward a form which requires knowledge of Latin?

Let’s back up and work on the fact that many cradle Catholics don’t understand the basics of their faith.

Being a “traditionalist” also includes being faithful to the magesterium and correctly passing on the faith. Obedience is part of Humility, the virtue which counteracts Pride.

I sense that people calling themselves “traditionalists” actually have as their true agenda the repudiation of Vatican II. This agenda was masked by the fervent calls to make the Tridentine Mass more available. The Pope relented, but has there been any gratitude? All I sense is more agitation.

As another poster said, schism in the church can only be harmful. The gospels are full of warnings about divisions.

Remember who we all unite around: Jesus the Christ. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 

[Cathryn]

The people I know who are looking forward to the Latin Mass are not “traditionalists”. We don’t repudiate Vatican II, or have an agenda. I fear that there are some Catholics who will label us “traditionalists” when we are just Catholics. My concern isn’t a sensitivity to name calling. My concern is this is divisive and not Catholic. This “traddy cliques” talk is itself divisive.

 

[tcraig]

However, the people who think that traditionalists are “bitter” are probably dissenters and liberals who don’t like the fact that traditionalists point out their heretical views. People who campaign for women priests and contraception would view traditionalists as “bitter” because we are opposed to this and are loyal to the teachings of the Church.

No, not everyone who says that traditionalists are bitter are as you described. There are many good, faithful Catholics who are completely put off by the attitudes that a large portion of “trads” project.

I used to be a member of a traditional FSSP parish. I’ve heard more than my fair share of diatribes against JPII, VII, women who wear pants, Catholics who use NFP, Catholics who don’t homeschool, the NO Mass, “NO Catholics”, etc. And these were Catholics who had regular access to a TLM parish where all the sacraments were in the traditional rite!

Some traditionalists want more than just loyalty to the teachings of the Church - they want to remake the Church over into their “image” of what it should be. In this, they are just as wrong as the most extreme liberal.

 

[sphilomena]

The people I know who are looking forward to the Latin Mass are not “traditionalists”. We don’t repudiate Vatican II, or have an agenda. I fear that there are some Catholics who will label us “traditionalists” when we are just Catholics. My concern isn’t a sensitivity to name calling. My concern is this is divisive and not Catholic. This “traddy cliques” talk is itself divisive.

Couldn’t agree more! I don’t even get to attend the TLM, but I wish I could go every day. I grew up in the 50’s and know what we have lost besides the TLM. I am traditional in that sense and have spent years reading and studying what has happened in the last 40 yrs. I despise the labels people use (though once in a while they may be deserved).

 

[otjm]

The people I know who are looking forward to the Latin Mass are not “traditionalists”. We don’t repudiate Vatican II, or have an agenda. I fear that there are some Catholics who will label us “traditionalists” when we are just Catholics. My concern isn’t a sensitivity to name calling. My concern is this is divisive and not Catholic. This “traddy cliques” talk is itself divisive.

I understand your concern. However, the reality is that there are those who have separated themselves off, with a view of the Church that does not match the ordinary person in the pew, and does not come real close of echoing the attitudes expressed by our Pope. They are people who have a vision of the Church that, if expressed as a pastor in a parish, may end up being more devisive than healing. Please read through Father Z’s blog - he, too is in favor of the EF, and I find it interesting, as it is comments by seminarians about the issue.

Factually, if we have young men (and they are young) doing their best to avoid things such as community Mass and LOTH in community, and separating themselves off from other seminarians because they espouse an ideology of the Church that is not mainstream (read, in line with the Magisterium), that is very divisive, and it is divisive not because we talk of it, but because they are persuing ordination to a Church which they seem to be repudiating. At least the SSPX are open about their division with the Church. They appear to be close to SSPX under cover.

The greatest difficulty is actually determining where truth in the matter lies; It is easy to paint the personnel in the seminary as “liberal” if you are far enough to the right to make the Pope into one of the liberals. On the other hand, it is not exactly a hidden secret that some of the seminaries have been well off the path, some far enough they have been in danger of falling off the earth. and since most of the information is anecdotal, it is difficult to determine who is where on the spectrum with any reliability. that, however, does not change the fact that this is coming from a seminarian.

 

[Cathryn]

I don’t understand why any reference to the use of Latin even in the NO is considered to be “Traditonal Catholicism”. I hope this changes. All this “Trad” stuff is divisive. There is one man in my parish who considers himself a Traditionalist and he is a true complainer about how Vatican II was evil, and he’s waiting for the Pope’s conversion, and on and on. I can see where this is a divisive problem. There seems to be a need for an acceptance that an ordinary Catholic can love the Latin in any form of the Mass and not be a “traditionalist”. An ordinary Catholic can even wear a head covering and not be a “traditionalist”. One can love the Extraordinary form and not be against the Ordinary Form. I think the use of the word “traditionalist” should be reserved for those who consider themselves “traditionalists”.

 

[otjm]

I don’t understand why any reference to the use of Latin even in the NO is considered to be “Traditonal Catholicism”. I hope this changes. All this “Trad” stuff is divisive. There is one man in my parish who considers himself a Traditionalist and he is a true complainer about how Vatican II was evil, and he’s waiting for the Pope’s conversion, and on and on. I can see where this is a divisive problem. There seems to be a need for an acceptance that an ordinary Catholic can love the Latin in any form of the Mass and not be a “traditionalist”. An ordinary Catholic can even wear a head covering and not be a “traditionalist”. One can love the Extraordinary form and not be against the Ordinary Form. I think the use of the word “traditionalist” should be reserved for those who consider themselves “traditionalists”.

Perhaps part of it is that those who are not traditionalists tend to be quiet, as they do not perceive themselves as having an agenda.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I attend a very reverent OF Mass and have been a member of the cathedral choir since the early 80s. As a member of the cathedral choir, let me assure you that I have seen liturgical dancers wafting bowls of incense in the entrance procession a’la Cecil B. DeMille. I have seen people carrying 15’ poles with ribbon banners dancing around at the foot of the altar. After I picked my jaw up from the floor, I had to sing some of the most …well, our choir director called it “Muppet Music”…if you can imagine Kermit and Miss Piggy singing it…

My brother NCJohn and I are of an age. We both grew up with the EF. John openly embraces the OF and that’s fine. But there were many of us who felt that our roots were ripped out in the transition between 1967 and 1969. I am not an elitist. The EF was the norm for me. I am exceedingly glad to see the EF restored (although it won’t be in my diocese where our bishop “acknowledged” the Motu Proprio).

It disturbs me to see seminarians carrying on as if the EF is somehow superior to the OF. I watched the Solemn High Mass on EWTN and I can assure you that it never resembled any Sunday Mass at my local parish before 1965. There was never a liturgical “cast of thousands”. It was usually a priest and four to six altar boys. But the mindset of the Mass was totally different.

It is a return to that mindset that I have hope for. When was the last time you were able to pray silently before Mass w/o hearing a greeter in back of church? How many take the time to bless themselves w/holy water upon entering and leaving church. Or genuflecting in honor of the presence of the Holy Eucharist upon entering/leaving a pew. How many people have complained that they have never experienced Benediction at their parish?

On the other hand, there are many on these forums who are discerning vocations and know far more about the minutiae of the EF than I ever knew as a child. It’s not about the details of the ritual, it’s about the mindset.

 

[otjm]

I attend a very reverent OF Mass and have been a member of the cathedral choir since the early 80s.
My brother NCJohn and I are of an age. We both grew up with the EF. John openly embraces the OF and that’s fine. But there were many of us who felt that our roots were ripped out in the transition between 1967 and 1969. I am not an elitist. The EF was the norm for me. I am exceedingly glad to see the EF restored (although it won’t be in my diocese where our bishop “acknowledged” the Motu Proprio).

It disturbs me to see seminarians carrying on as if the EF is somehow superior to the OF. I watched the Solemn High Mass on EWTN and I can assure you that it never resembled any Sunday Mass at my local parish before 1965. There was never a liturgical “cast of thousands”. It was usually a priest and four to six altar boys. But the mindset of the Mass was totally different.

On the other hand, there are many on these forums who are discerning vocations and know far more about the minutiae of the EF than I ever knew as a child. It’s not about the details of the ritual, it’s about the mindset.

I, too, was an altar boy “back then”; we had a pastor who I believe was, or had been, a Sulpician (although what he was doing not teaching in a seminary I don’t know), was Irish, and had a serious drinking problem. A bright man, and my recollection was of one striving for holiness, and beset by the bottle.

We had Solemn High Masses with six candle bearers, 2 altar boys, a thurifer, a Master of Ceremonies, a sub deacon, deacon and priest. They made a High Mass look pale in comparison; and the High Mass made the Low Mass look pale, in terms of pomp and circumstance.

About the only Masses that seem to compare somewhat with a Solemn High Mass today in similar pomp and circumstance are the Holy Chrism Mass at the cathedral, and the centennial Mass we had in the colesium with about 9000 parishoners from all over the archdiocese.

It seems to me that we managed to be true to the Magisterium then without having a lot of seminarians who set themselves off from everyone else, would not join in community Masses or LOTH.

And back when I was in the seminary (college, because that drunk Irish pastor said I would go to high school seminary over his dead body - to which I am eternally grateful), during Vatican 2, we didn’t have those off in isolation. We all pretty much got along, we all pitched in with whatever was going on; we prayed together, studied together, and recreated together.

What bothers me is having someone, a young wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper, who has no idea whatsoever what was going on in 1962, or 1955, or 1930, or 1907 in the Church, come in as if he is wiser than all of the hierarchy, and decide that he is somehow anointed to take a parish back to whatever vision he has of “back then”. There is a lack of real wisdom in those who have a bit of theology, and a poor graps of history and sociology, and think they know better than everyone else. And there is a decided lack of discernment on the part of those who cannot separate out dissent from authentic teaching.

What we need are not priests who wish to condemn or belittle Vatican 2, or play one upsmanship over the EF vs the OF. What we need are priests who are on fire for Christ.

I have seen awesome Masses in both the EF and the OF; I have also personally experienced abuses in both. Give me a priest for the parish who is in love with Christ, who is steeped in Scripture, and it won’t matter whether it is the OF or the EF, or if both are offered. Our focus will be drawn to Christ because his focus is on Christ. For those who prefer the vernacular, they will have holy and awesome Masses in the OF, and for those who prefer Latin and a more complicated rubrics they too will have holy and awesome Masses. Give me a pastor who wants to throw out all Scripture study since 1850, who thinks that the OF is an abomination, and who elevates form over substance, and I’ll be given chaos, a personalist and eletist expression of what he thinks the Church is, and not be guided by the mind, heart and soul of the Catholic Church as expressed in the Roman rite.

I don’t need a pastor who thinks that he was anointed to change the Church or save it from itself. I need a pastor who leads me to Christ. I am not convinced that in Father z’s blog, that the other seminarians who are the focus of the blog are on fire for Christ. They strike me as being more on fire for their own agenda, and have become legends in their own mind.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Ah, I hear you otjm. After almost 10 years of us singing/chanting everything in English (via the 1940 Episcopalian hymnal), we were allowed minimal Latin motets for the parish’s 200th anniversary in 1992. We had the Cardinal Archbishop of Lyons, France celebrate Mass for us along with the Bishop of Salamanca, Spain, the Archbishops of New Orleans (one was retired) and all the Bishops of the Province of Louisiana.

The Cardinal Archbishop of Lyons departed from the “script” and gave the Apostolic Blessing in Latin. There were five of us in the choir who recognized what was going on. There were a handful of the priests from the diocese who responded as well. All-in-all it was very embarrassing. Just thirty years earlier, it would not have been a problem.

I applaud the young folks for their zeal. On the other hand we have to acknowledge that this is 2007 and there is an awful lot of water under the bridge. It seems to me that they are seeking after an “ideal” which does not match the reality of “what was”. I would like to see these young seminarians talk to us who are over, say, 55 before they embark on a willy-nilly quest over fine details. They would be better served to renew the sense of the sacred. God is in his holy temple. Let all remain quiet on the Earth.