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

[Cathryn]

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

The Cardinal gave the Apostolic Blessing in the language of the Church. What was so very embarrassing? I don’t get it.

 

[brotherhrolf]

How few knew the responses was what was embarassing. Thirty years earlier, the congregation would have known the response.

I mean really…How many would know how to respond today if the Cardinal Archbishop of Lyons was visiting your parish and suddenly chanted Adjutorium nostrum in nomine Domini?

 

[Cathryn]

How few knew the responses was what was embarassing. Thirty years earlier, the congregation would have known the response.

I mean really…How many would know how to respond today if the Cardinal Archbishop of Lyons was visiting your parish and suddenly chanted Adjutorium nostrum in nomine Domini?

I bet the Cardinal would have been happy to teach us the response if no one knew.

 

[HenryV]

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.

Come on, I’ve heard much more bitter complaints from liberals or just neoconservatives about the TLM and it’s followers, bitterness and complaint isn’t monopolized by traddies.
What’s important is to stay close to Jesus trough prayers and the sacraments and to forgive eachother as God forgives us.
Besides the Church does need a new makeover, semper reformanda. The springtime of Vatican II has failed to come is that very hard to see?

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

All this talk about division 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)

 

[ncjohn]

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.

I am in full agreement with you here Brother. But the fact is that these guys are definitely coming out with an agenda and it is fully about returning the Church to the pre-Vatican II days. They have no interest in talking to anybody as they already have all the answers they think they need. I tried personally talking to one of them early on when I saw what was going on and was written off immediately as “just another liberal”.

There is a very concerted and organized plan in place, and a large part of it involves a very strong involvment with recruiting the teenage boys. While I am a strong supporter of vocations, I fear we will be seeing a disproportionate number of young men who have been strongly influenced by this anti-Vatican II sentiment. I have heard them already echoing the “Vatican II was the worst thing to ever happen to the Church” mantra and disparaging their own families for preferring the vernacular. This is not about preference for, or promoting one form or another; it is about crushing anything that occurred after the death of Pius XII.

I have no way of knowing how prevalent this movement is, but I do know from first hand experience in our diocese that it is there and that the “clique” that doesn’t talk about what they’re up to is very active.

By the way, I too never saw a high Mass that looked anything like that EWTN Mass though I attended one of the biggest parishes in Milwaukee for many years pre-Vatican II. Even Christmas and Easter didn’t look like that. Though it may just be me, I found it very hard to keep focused on the liturgical purpose rather than the “performance” aspect of it.

Peace to you,

 

[DustinsDad]

I tried personally talking to one of them early on when I saw what was going on and was written off immediately as “just another liberal”.

How do you know you’re not?

There is a very concerted and organized plan in place, and a large part of it involves a very strong involvment with recruiting the teenage boys.

You say that as if it’s sinister…but isn’t this the time when young boys are being spiritually formed and discerning, at least initially, the direction their life will go…searching out what God has in mind for them. The Church should be talking seriously with and helping to form these young men for their possible vocations to the priesthood. This, as opposed to forming them to get hip with the teen-life type rock ‘n roll masses and discussing the latest release from rappin’ priest celebrities.

While I am a strong supporter of vocations, I fear we will be seeing a disproportionate number of young men who have been strongly influenced by this anti-Vatican II sentiment.

Perhaps it’s an anti-“Spirit of Vatican II” sentiment. It’s easy to confuse the two when they are all so often closely connected.
.

I have heard them already echoing the “Vatican II was the worst thing to ever happen to the Church” mantra and disparaging their own families for preferring the vernacular.

Well, all I can say is that not all those preferring the vernacular are cafeteria and liberal catholics, but all cafeteria and liberal catholics unfailingly prefer the vernacular. The TLM is poison to them.

Further, I think it’s only being honest to say that the council hasn’t been exactly a fruitful one for the Church. It’s been followed chronoligically at least by vast devastation (loss of vocations, converts, and faithful members) and scandal (widespread homosexuality infiltrating the priesthood, open heresy being preached from too many pulpits, etc.). If it’s been fruitful for any groups, it’s been fruitful for those non-Catholic religions who’ve been absorbing those individuals leaving the Church in the Council’s wake.

I have no way of knowing how prevalent this movement is, but I do know from first hand experience in our diocese that it is there and that the “clique” that doesn’t talk about what they’re up to is very active.

Beware the undergound Catholic Church.

By the way, I too never saw a high Mass that looked anything like that EWTN Mass though I attended one of the biggest parishes in Milwaukee for many years pre-Vatican II. Even Christmas and Easter didn’t look like that.

I see one just like it every Sunday, but can’t speak to your experience in the 50s. Perhaps folks took it for granted and didn’t appreciate it for what it was. Absense makes the heart grow fonder. Perhaps that is why the Lord allowed it to be “taken away” for the last few decades…so we could truly come to appreciate what we had.

Further, most traditional folks I talke to don’t think Vatican II “invented” all the problems of the Church in the last 40 years, it just sort of “uncorked” alot of percolating problems that had been simmering for quite sometime within - and let in (through the new openess) alot of problems that had been hammering the Church from the outside.

Though it may just be me, I found it very hard to keep focused on the liturgical purpose rather than the “performance” aspect of it.

There is a law in theology that says that we only receive the graces we are predisposed to receive. Perhaps you are bringing to much protestant influenced “Spirit of Vatican II” baggage to the mass, and what the traditional-minded see as awe-inspiring beauty in the worship directed to God, you see as distractive…feeling left out or something since it’s God-directed and not man-directed. Too vertical and not horizontal enough for your new tastes.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[ncjohn]

ncjohn:

There is a very concerted and organized plan in place, and a large part of it involves a very strong involvment with recruiting the teenage boys.

You say that as if it’s sinister…but isn’t this the time when young boys are being spiritually formed and discerning, at least initially, the direction their life will go…searching out what God has in mind for them. The Church should be talking seriously with and helping to form these young men for their possible vocations to the priesthood. This, as opposed to forming them to get hip with the teen-life type rock ‘n roll masses and discussing the latest release from rappin’ priest celebrities.

Yes, it is sinister when the youth are being systematically taught that Vatican II is to be ignored and that every effort should be sought to overturn everything it did. As I made very clear I am all for encouraging vocations, but not to a priesthood that recognizes only a pre-conciliar version of the Church.

DustinsDad:

There is a law in theology that says that we only receive the graces we are predisposed to receive. Perhaps you are bringing to much protestant influenced “Spirit of Vatican II” baggage to the mass, and what the traditional-minded see as awe-inspiring beauty in the worship directed to God, you see as distractive…feeling left out or something since it’s God-directed and not man-directed. Too vertical and not horizontal enough for your new tastes.

Wow, two ad hominem attacks in the same post! Though I expected nothing less since your anti-Vatican II positions are quite clear as is your support for exactly what the OP finds to be a problem.

Yes, I’m just a fuzzy-minded liberal who couldn’t find God or piety if it bit me in the butt and couldn’t find grace if it hit me full in the face. It must be incredibly heady to be able to read other’s devotion and piety and know that they are “man-directed” and “feeling left out”.

Brings to mind a passage that someone once read to me–being illiterate and all–out of this book called the Bible about taking the beam out of one’s own eye…

 

[DustinsDad]

…Wow, two ad hominem attacks in the same post! Though I expected nothing less since your anti-Vatican II positions are quite clear as is your support for exactly what the OP finds to be a problem.

My critique wasn’t ad hominem…your response is. I was merely suggesting some logical reason why you would be distracted by the so-called “performance aspect” of the Solemn High Mass - what has been called the most beautiful thing this side of heaven.

I’m just looking for a a possible reason for something so, well, unreasonable as considering the Solemn High Mass a distracting “performance”. And if your own description of the Solemn High Mass doesn’t sound like a Protestant critique to you, then I am merely further confirmed in my initial suspicions.

And just for a follow up question - what do you think my take on Vatican II is? You sound like you’ve got me all figured out. I’m just curious as to how you perceive me.

…Yes, I’m just a fuzzy-minded liberal who couldn’t find God or piety if it bit me in the butt and couldn’t find grace if it hit me full in the face. It must be incredibly heady to be able to read other’s devotion and piety and know that they are “man-directed” and “feeling left out”.

My oh my, when the shoe is on the other foot it certainly feels different doesn’t it? Heh. You should lighten up a bit.

For what have you been doing in this thread if not being “incredibly heady” and “reading other’s devotion and piety” - in your case reading the spirit, fidelity, faithfulness, devotion, and piety of those dastardly traditional seminarians…who by your own admission aren’t really talking much to you in the first place!

…Brings to mind a passage that someone once read to me–being illiterate and all–out of this book called the Bible about taking the beam out of one’s own eye…

And here I thought you were concerned with the beams in the traditional seminarians’ eyes. If no one can critique or comment what anyone else says or does, then perhaps you should use this same Biblical precept and leave the traditional seminarians the heck alone - as opposed to trying to paint them with the “sinister” brush.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[ncjohn]

For what have you been doing in this thread if not being “incredibly heady” and “reading other’s devotion and piety” - in your case reading the spirit, fidelity, faithfulness, devotion, and piety of those dastardly traditional seminarians…who by your own admission aren’t really talking much to you in the first place!
…
And here I thought you were concerned with the beams in the traditional seminarians’ eyes. If no one can critique or comment what anyone else says or does, then perhaps you should use this same Biblical precept and leave the traditional seminarians the heck alone - as opposed to trying to paint them with the “sinister” brush.

It’s not seminarians I am addressing; it’s priests in our diocese. And I’m not “reading” anything at all. It is first-hand statements made to me by them and by some of the youth they are working with, as well as parish catechists and other priests, and statements made in parish bulletins.

Those comparisons of known actual situations to the report by the seminarian in the OP serve as comfirmation that what he addresses is occurring not only in the seminary but after ordination. As I said, I don’t know how widespread it is overall, but it is fairly widespread in our area.

Nice try at the deflection though.

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Note:

Let’s please move away from discussing each other and get back to the topic at hand. Thank you.

 

[DustinsDad]

It’s not seminarians I am addressing; it’s priests in our diocese.

So you are saying that there are actually priests in your diocese that are saying “Vatican II is to be ignored” and that “every effort should be sought to overturn everything it did” and that their goal is “crushing anything that occurred after the death of Pius XII.” Further, you expect us to believe that these priests are actually “concerted and organized” with “sinister” plans to recruit young boys into their dastardly schemes - http://bestsmileys.com/scared/7.gif

And that while they refuse to talk to you because they think you’re “just another liberal”, and while they keep their sinister plans ever so secret - they nevertheless shared their secret plot with you? Interesting.

On the one hand, I’d say, give me a break.

On the other, I’d say that since Vatican II defined no new dogma or doctrine (as John XXIII said), then any preference to move to a “pre-conciliar” approach would involve prudential judgements and practices regarding such things as the liturgy, an authentic Catholic approach to ecumenism (which is seeking and encouraging conversion) and an authentic / unambiguous Catholic understanding of the true notion of religious liberty. Hence, these opinions are well within their rights as members of the body of Christ to hold. Nothing sinister or evil about that.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[ncjohn]

So you are saying that there are actually priests in your diocese that are saying “Vatican II is to be ignored” and that “every effort should be sought to overturn everything it did” and that their goal is “crushing anything that occurred after the death of Pius XII.” Further, you expect us to believe that these priests are actually “concerted and organized” with “sinister” plans to recruit young boys into their dastardly schemes - http://bestsmileys.com/scared/7.gif

And that while they refuse to talk to you because they think you’re “just another liberal”, and while they keep their sinister plans ever so secret - they nevertheless shared their secret plot with you? Interesting.

On the one hand, I’d say, give me a break.

Well, I guess you can add calling me a liar to the list. I’ve reported what I heard first hand with regard to actual experience relative to the OP.

On the other, I’d say that since Vatican II defined no new dogma or doctrine (as John XXIII said), then any preference to move to a “pre-conciliar” approach would involve prudential judgements and practices regarding such things as the liturgy, an authentic Catholic approach to ecumenism (which is seeking and encouraging conversion) and an authentic / unambiguous Catholic understanding of the true notion of religious liberty. Hence, these opinions are well within their rights as members of the body of Christ to hold. Nothing sinister or evil about that.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

Then I guess that since it’s ok to reject the validity of an ecumenical council that others are free to reject Vatican I or Trent.

 

[otjm]

Come on, I’ve heard much more bitter complaints from liberals or just neoconservatives about the TLM and it’s followers, bitterness and complaint isn’t monopolized by traddies.
What’s important is to stay close to Jesus trough prayers and the sacraments and to forgive eachother as God forgives us.
Besides the Church does need a new makeover, semper reformanda. The springtime of Vatican II has failed to come is that very hard to see?

I don’t think the poster you were responding to was saying that there hasn’t been complaints by the other side.

I do think that one can stand in a place, which is true to the Magisterium, and critque people on both ends of the spectrum. The fact that one might be critiquing those on one end does not of necessity imply that the same person would not critique those on the other end. And the substance of this thread is about seminarians who seem to want to remake the Chrch in their own image.

Benedict 16 has launched an interesting expirement, and it is going to take time to see how it works out. I have no fear that in some areas (in the US and elsewhere; I would particularly include France with their high numbers of SSPX followers) things will work out peacefully. It will be predominately in parishes that are not on the liberal end of the spectrum, because parishes that are quite liberal will most likely not have the EF at all.

But I think his observation of an FSSP parish is quite interesting; it seems, from his comments, that at least some, if not many of the parishoners attracted to such parish are not much more than SSPX members attending a parish in union with Rome. I note he did not say the pastor was pushing such an agenda.

I do think that as this grand experiment moves on, that there will be more (and not a hugh amount) of people surfacing who bitterly oppose the Magisterium of the Church - the Pope, and the bishops and Cardinals in unity with him, as he and they support Vatican 2 and changes that have legitimately occured since then. And it will be interesting to see how bishops respond, most particularly if they find that they have priests on their hands who support and encourage such attitudes.

I would agree that much of the springtime has not occured (although I think some of the changes are fabulous - such as greater awareness of and use of Scripture); but as both John Paul 2 and Benedict 16 have maintained for many years, what we need to do is get back to the documents of Vatican 2 and properly implement them. What the poster you referred to, and what the seminarians who are separating off seem to be saying is to get rid of anything and everything, icnluding Vatican 2. And in that, they do not speak with the mind of the Church.

 

[otjm]

You say that as if it’s sinister…but isn’t this the time when young boys are being spiritually formed and discerning, at least initially, the direction their life will go…searching out what God has in mind for them. The Church should be talking seriously with and helping to form these young men for their possible vocations to the priesthood. This, as opposed to forming them to get hip with the teen-life type rock ‘n roll masses and discussing the latest release from rappin’ priest celebrities.

There are a number of reasons that high school seminaries have all but disappeared; one fo the reasons was that there was such a hugh fall-out of those who entered in high school and quit before entering college, or quit part way through college. Formation of a teen si much more than just spiritual formation, but please, don’t play the card of “hip life…” as if that wass the only alternative.

Further, I think it’s only being honest to say that the council hasn’t been exactly a fruitful one for the Church. It’s been followed chronoligically at least by vast devastation (loss of vocations, converts, and faithful members) and scandal (widespread homosexuality infiltrating the priesthood, open heresy being preached from too many pulpits, etc.). If it’s been fruitful for any groups, it’s been fruitful for those non-Catholic religions who’ve been absorbing those individuals leaving the Church in the Council’s wake.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Both John Paul 2 and Benedict 16 have maintained that it has not been implemented fully, so until it is, your presumption that it was bad for the Church is unfounded. Further, there is another current thread about why so many have fallen away; this belongs there.

 

[DustinsDad]

There are a number of reasons that high school seminaries have all but disappeared; one fo the reasons was that there was such a hugh fall-out of those who entered in high school and quit before entering college, or quit part way through college. Formation of a teen si much more than just spiritual formation, but please, don’t play the card of “hip life…” as if that wass the only alternative.

Yep there are a multitude of reasons - a multitude. And each one of them - including your sort of reason above - could be denied with a simple post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Both John Paul 2 and Benedict 16 have maintained that it has not been implemented fully, so until it is, your presumption that it was bad for the Church is unfounded. Further, there is another current thread about why so many have fallen away; this belongs there.

Not implemented fully indeed - I think everyone is still arguing about what it actually said and actually taught. Ah - it’s hard to implement “essays” anyhow. We shall see. You are as entitled to your opinion of these* prudential* matters as the traditional priests and seminarians. I think the evidence falls in their favor when actually examined in detail though.

That we could **all **be more charitable is a given. Much prayer is required on both sides. In the meantime, read the attachment I included with this post - it’s written by Michael Davies - someone who Pope Benedict XVI holds in high regard. At least it might give you a better and more fair perspective of “traditionalists”. (I had to quickly convert it from word in order to upload it, so the formatting might be difficult - headings and such - I’ll try to improve it later if you want).

Now I must run to mass - a N.O. mass being said at my parents house. They are having the Sacred Heart Enthronement tonight. Say a prayer for us will ya my friend?

And peace in Christ!

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

Well, I guess you can add calling me a liar to the list. I’ve reported what I heard first hand with regard to actual experience relative to the OP.

I’d prefer the term “wrong”. Thinking you have come to a wrong conclusion is not calling you a liar.

Then I guess that since it’s ok to reject the validity of an ecumenical council that others are free to reject Vatican I or Trent.

Who’s rejecing the validity of anything? Recogizing the difference between prudential practical matters and defined dogma is sort of basic.

Peace - now I’m running late!

DustinsDad

 

[otjm]

Yep there are a multitude of reasons - a multitude. And each one of them - including your sort of reason above - could be denied with a simple post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

I twoulod seem that you know very little bout the seminaries; having been in one, and having kept in touch with some of my professors (clooege seminary), I talked with them concerning why high school seminaries were being shut down. That was one of the answers. Either you do not know what post hoc, ergo proprter hoc menas, or you are just choosing to be arguementative because you have no information. In any event, the facts are that high school seminaries were shut down because the expense ratio of getting a 14 year old all the way through to ordination simply was not feasible, as most all of them dropped out. There was a lower drop out rate from those who enterd in college, and a lower rate yet for those who entered afte college.

Not implemented fully indeed - I think everyone is still arguing about what it actually said and actually taught.

That is not my experinece; the ones arguing are the ones who didn’t read the documents.

Ah - it’s hard to implement “essays” anyhow. We shall see. You are as entitled to your opinion of these* prudential* matters as the traditional priests and seminarians. I think the evidence falls in their favor when actually examined in detail though.

In other words, we have some seminarians who don’t even have a Masters degree, who are smarter than a pope with a PhD in Philosophy and another PhD in theology, and smarter that the current Pope with a PhD in theology and a reputation of being one the most, if not the most brilliant theologians currently living.

Right. Got it.

 

[DustinsDad]

I twoulod seem that you know very little bout the seminaries; having been in one, and having kept in touch with some of my professors (clooege seminary), I talked with them concerning why high school seminaries were being shut down. That was one of the answers.

I am merely saying that actually taking teenage boys and giving them some solid traditional catholic formation (the kind most NEVER see or hear of because they’re too filled and “religiously educated” with fluff and ecumenistic nonsense) is not sinister - it’s a blessing. How this got into a discussion of high school seminaries is beyond me - perhaps you and nc can take this offline and discuss amongst yourselves.

Either you do not know what post hoc, ergo proprter hoc means, or you are just choosing to be arguementative because you have no information.

I know exactly what it means - and it’s the common line thrown up to dismiss any serious discussion of the fruits (or lack thereof) of Vatican II - and the wisdom of continuing in the same direction without admitting that some new practices and new prudential judgements have not been so glorious and productive for building up the body of Christ.

What is amazing is how Vatican II can be such a vitally important and tremendous “opening up” and “renewal” of the Church that everyone must embrace anything and everything done in it’s name or be a schismatic - and at the same time the Council has absolutely nothing to do with the current state of the Church. Talk about your leaps in logic.

That is not my experinece; the ones arguing are the ones who didn’t read the documents.

I would hazard a guess that one tradionalists is more likely to have read the Vatican II documents (along with the other councils’ documents and pre and post VII papal encyclicals etc.) than any 1000 run-of-the mill average N.O. Catholics.

DustinsDad : Ah - it’s hard to implement “essays” anyhow. We shall see. You are as entitled to your opinion of these* prudential* matters as the traditional priests and seminarians. I think the evidence falls in their favor when actually examined in detail though.

othm: In other words, we have some seminarians who don’t even have a Masters degree, who are smarter than a pope with a PhD in Philosophy and another PhD in theology, and smarter that the current Pope with a PhD in theology and a reputation of being one the most, if not the most brilliant theologians currently living.

Where you responding to someone else? Doesn’t seem to fit in our discussion.

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

… In the meantime, read the attachment I included with this post - it’s written by Michael Davies - someone who Pope Benedict XVI holds in high regard. At least it might give you a better and more fair perspective of “traditionalists”. (I had to quickly convert it from word in order to upload it, so the formatting might be difficult - headings and such - I’ll try to improve it later if you want).

Here it is again - I tried to go into the text file and format it a little bit so it’s easier to read.

Enjoy.

DustinsDad