F
FrJohn
Guest
Good point JourneyHome.
Even if you have the legitimate authority to do something, you can still go about it in a ruthless manner. I didn’t question the Holy See’s authority to implement the New Mass. I merely pointed out that it was done so in a way that was ruthless. An ancient rite so familiar to generations of Catholics was pulled out from beneath them in the blink of an eye. Then, to add insult to injury, that Mass that they had known and loved was panned by the reformers as evil, and they were forced to assist at a novel liturgy based on 1960s psychology and a desire to appease Protestants. For decades, the vast majority of Catholics worldwide had absolutely NO access to the Traditional Mass. It was just gone. Stolen. The high altars came down. The tabernacles were placed in the corner. Countless churches were “wreckovated” to accommodate the new theology of the New Mass. Those who resisted were slammed with the most extreme ecclesiastical penalties. Accept the New Mass, or else. Ruthless. Merciless.You can’t be “ruthless” in suppressing something if you are the ecclesial authority in charge. The Holy See has every right to determine what does or doesn’t go on. It did it at Trent and it’s allowed to do it at Vatican II, and it’s allowed to do it again after that if it deems it appropriate. It doesn’t have to explain or justify itself. It simply does so for pastoral reasons, not because it is obliged to do so. Laity, religious, and clergy have zero right or entitlement to act contrary.
Correct. Too often do we see the erroneous comparison between the organic liturgical reforms after Trent and the novelties that sprung from Vatican II.Actually, Trent codified what was already the mainstream liturgical practice in the West, with preservation of those particular usages and rites that could prove 200 years of use. It did not create a new liturgy.
Having lived through the era, this has to be one of the more absurd contentions I have read on this forum…even for a forum that is so evidently populated by a gaggle of non-theologians. The absurdities of the assertions boggle the mind of those who experienced what we lived.Those who resisted were slammed with the most extreme ecclesiastical penalties. Accept the New Mass, or else. Ruthless. Merciless.
It makes for an interesting word picture. The Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord ruthlessly and mercilessly made available to sinners in need of grace.R_H_Benson:![]()
The absurdities of the assertions boggle the mind of those who experienced what we lived.Those who resisted were slammed with the most extreme ecclesiastical penalties. Accept the New Mass, or else. Ruthless. Merciless.
It is the truly sad and tragic picture of integralists.It makes for an interesting word picture. The Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord ruthlessly and mercilessly made available to sinners in need of grace.
So many who lived through the same era paint a far different picture than yours, Father.Having lived through the era
“Integralist” and “Integralism” are the terms used by the academy in Europe to describe the range of phenomenon I am addressing.I wish that we would stop hearing how those who prefer the EF are “integralists” (which is a very offensive word), retrogrades, reactionaries, etc. If only out of Christian charity.
Precisely. Which is why it is a term I will continue to apply, according to our usage in Europe – just as I would with the term “fundamentalism,” which is also a term used by academics to describe religious realities.I happen to be an academic. Terms must be defined. Nor does the Church use such language…it is used predominately by French, Italian, Spanish, and some other Europeans to describe certain political and religious realities.
I think this a very widespread experience among the clergy – the closer we go back to the Council and therefore the more decades of experience we have the more we have seen this.Most people who present themselves as reformers are nice, very nice, about what they are proposing. I am reminded of what C. S. Lewis said about “do-gooders.” They are of all people the most insufferable. I forget where he said that. As I said, the EFers just aren’t that nice about their proposals. I have been soundly lambasted as heretical and retrograde; and they try very hard to seem to be taking the high road.
I received a gift of a subscription of it from an American when I was visiting the United States. The best thing I can say about it is that it made excellent kindling for the fireplace.I haven’t thought about that publication in years. Very sad people.One day as we were leaving the church after Mass, my Dad asked me, about the “New Mass,” “Did you like that?” I replied, “Yeah, Dad I did.” “Well I didn’t.” he said, and off he went to peruse the pages of “The Wanderer.” Now there was a bitter, ruthless rag for you.