Two Popes

[Nordar]

So, you’re basically calling the decisions of John Paul II flawed, and presuming that Benedict XVI is going to fix all of that for you…in your opinion of course…

LOL I was just thinking the exact same thing:yup:

 

[Nordar]

What do you disagree with? You haven’t said.

I understand that the Pope has the RIGHT to change the mysteries of the Rosary (I happen to like the luminous mysteries). I also understand the Pope has a right to change the stations.

First, you ignored the argument I made entirely. Did you even read it?

Second, you missed the entire point of the post. The QUESTION I asked was whether or not these changes were pastorally prudent. The damage they seem to have done to Christian unity is relatively apparent.

When traditionalists ask questions such as “why?” or “was this prudent?” otherwise faithful Catholics smack the traditionalists around with apologetic treatises arguing that the Church has the authority to make these changes. Yes… I get it… Thank you… How CAF of you to copy paste an apologetic for my benefit. I assure you… I have read it before…

BUT… what you are missing is this: statistics show the Church has been in STEEP decline since Vatican II. Statistics show that young men especially are fleeing our Church like rats fleeing a sinking ship. Statistics show that piety is down. Statistics show that 80-90 percent of Catholics either a) don’t believe or b) ignore the Church’s infallible teachings on Humane Vitae.

You see, these problems (liturgical practice and common piety as they relate to Catholic belief) are INTERCONNECTED. To get at the meat and potatoes here you just can’t run to Catholic apologetic websites and get simple answers to complex problems.

Before the Council it is relatively clear given the evidence that traditional Catholic piety shored up Catholic belief relatively effectively. After the Council, the new (and increasingly protestant) piety we have sought to invent has FAILED to shore up Catholic belief in the face of the challenges presented by modern culture.

Why?

In short: orthopraxy leads to orthodoxy. If our current praxis is not leading to orthodoxy then it is legitimate to question the current practice.

This is what Michael Davies (different scholar than who are discussing now in the OP) did his whole life.

His whole life he was criticized and marginalized by those who make similar muscular arguments for the VII Church’s authority to make changes (whether they make sense or not). His whole life he stuck to his guns and published excellent and scholarly works in defense of Catholic tradition.

Upon his death, Benedict XVI, who is NOW OUR POPE, had this to say:

"I have been profoundly touched by the news of the death of Michael Davies. I had the good fortune to meet him several times and I found him as a man of deep faith and ready to embrace suffering. Ever since the Council he put all his energy into the service of the Faith and left us important publications especially about the Sacred Liturgy. Even though he suffered from the Church in many ways in his time, he always truly remained a man of the Church. He knew that the Lord founded His Church on the rock of St Peter and that the Faith can find its fullness and maturity only in union with the successor of St Peter. Therefore we can be confident that the Lord opened wide for him the gates of heaven. We commend his soul to the Lord’s mercy.”

In light of everything that has been said, and especially in light of WHO has said it, saying “I disagree with you” clearly becomes insufficient. It makes it sound like I am only talking about my “feelings” or my “opinions.” I am speaking of neither.

Rather, I am presenting arguments by great scholars who are not hostile to Catholic tradition and who are loyal to the Church. The arguments tend to focus on changes to Catholic piety over the last 40 years that make NO SENSE when examined from an informed position.

That is what traditionalists are saying. Those who oppose the current Pope’s efforts to bring the new Mass into line with a hermeneutic of continuity and restore traditional Catholic piety have absolutely failed to answer the arguments of the traditionalists thus far. My hope and prayer is they just get on board with the Benedictine reform.

Your opinions are definately lengthy I give you that!

 

[cathguy]

Your opinions are definately lengthy I give you that!

Sorry… don’t think in sound bites.

Most traditionalists don’t

Of course, the argument I presented is not so much an opinion. It is more of a question, asked by theologians MUCH smarter than me:

You know… people like:

Joseph Ratzinger who is now POPE

Michael Davies

Ralph McInerny

Eaamon Duffy

and a HOST of others…

Of course, you could just be like most other posters here and read Scott Hahn, Catholic Answers guides to various issues, and nothing else. Then you could spend your time reducing traditionalist concerns to the level of private opinion, all the while giving all the fuel to the fire necessary for those who would continue a deepening and increasingly dangerous schismatic course.

Lets offend the schismatic traditionalists back into the fold by arguing against the Pope! That’ll work!!

You guys are GREAT Catholics. Way to go!!

 

[Frosty]

I understand that the Pope has the RIGHT to change the mysteries of the Rosary (I happen to like the luminous mysteries). I also understand the Pope has a right to change the stations.

First, you ignored the argument I made entirely. Did you even read it?

Second, you missed the entire point of the post. **The QUESTION I asked was whether or not these changes were pastorally prudent. The damage they seem to have done to Christian unity is relatively apparent. **
When traditionalists ask questions such as “why?” or “was this prudent?” otherwise faithful Catholics smack the traditionalists around with apologetic treatises arguing that the Church has the authority to make these changes. Yes… I get it… Thank you… How CAF of you to copy paste an apologetic for my benefit. I assure you… I have read it before…

BUT… what you are missing is this: statistics show the Church has been in STEEP decline since Vatican II. Statistics show that young men especially are fleeing our Church like rats fleeing a sinking ship. Statistics show that piety is down. Statistics show that 80-90 percent of Catholics either a) don’t believe or b) ignore the Church’s infallible teachings on Humane Vitae.

You see, these problems (liturgical practice and common piety as they relate to Catholic belief) are INTERCONNECTED. To get at the meat and potatoes here you just can’t run to Catholic apologetic websites and get simple answers to complex problems.

Before the Council it is relatively clear given the evidence that traditional Catholic piety shored up Catholic belief relatively effectively. After the Council, the new (and increasingly protestant) piety we have sought to invent has FAILED to shore up Catholic belief in the face of the challenges presented by modern culture.

Why?

In short: orthopraxy leads to orthodoxy. If our current praxis is not leading to orthodoxy then it is legitimate to question the current practice.

This is what Michael Davies (different scholar than who are discussing now in the OP) did his whole life.

His whole life he was criticized and marginalized by those who make similar muscular arguments for the VII Church’s authority to make changes (whether they make sense or not). His whole life he stuck to his guns and published excellent and scholarly works in defense of Catholic tradition.

Upon his death, Benedict XVI, who is NOW OUR POPE, had this to say:

"I have been profoundly touched by the news of the death of Michael Davies. I had the good fortune to meet him several times and I found him as a man of deep faith and ready to embrace suffering. Ever since the Council he put all his energy into the service of the Faith and left us important publications especially about the Sacred Liturgy. Even though he suffered from the Church in many ways in his time, he always truly remained a man of the Church. He knew that the Lord founded His Church on the rock of St Peter and that the Faith can find its fullness and maturity only in union with the successor of St Peter. Therefore we can be confident that the Lord opened wide for him the gates of heaven. We commend his soul to the Lord’s mercy.”

In light of everything that has been said, and especially in light of WHO has said it, saying “I disagree with you” clearly becomes insufficient. It makes it sound like I am only talking about my “feelings” or my “opinions.” I am speaking of neither.

Rather, I am presenting arguments by great scholars who are not hostile to Catholic tradition and who are loyal to the Church. The arguments tend to focus on changes to Catholic piety over the last 40 years that make NO SENSE when examined from an informed position.

That is what traditionalists are saying. Those who oppose the current Pope’s efforts to bring the new Mass into line with a hermeneutic of continuity and restore traditional Catholic piety have absolutely failed to answer the arguments of the traditionalists thus far. My hope and prayer is they just get on board with the Benedictine reform.

I read your “argument” and frankly, I don’t see where there is any cause for one. It seems to me to be a case of making a mountain from a molehill. John Paul II did not change anything in either the Rosary or the Stations of the Cross. He did not change the structure of the Rosary as a prayer, It is meant to be said as a contemplation of the mysteries of the life of Christ. By adding the Luminous Mysteries, John Paul II gave us the option to also contemplate on a most important part of Christ’s life - His public ministry. Why traditionalists would object to this is way beyond my understanding. No one is compelled to say the Luminous Mysteries so what’s the argument?
Same with the Stations of the Cross. The traditional form of the Via Crucis, with its fourteen stations is still considered the typical form, Nothing has been altered in it. The Scriptural Stations are an alternative form that can be used from time to time if so desired. No changes have been made to the original pious devotion which by the way, can differ in small details from country to country.

The QUESTION I asked was whether or not these changes were pastorally prudent. The damage they seem to have done to Christian unity is relatively apparent

What proof do you have for this statement? Giving options to pious religious devotions , which means a Catholic can choose for him or herself whether or not to avail themselves of it, is not the same as an encyclical such as Humanae Vitae.

 

[ethelzguy]

I don’t know about Cathguy,…but** I **definately feel that way!

You have my prayers.

 

[Nordar]

Sorry… don’t think in sound bites.

Most traditionalists don’t

…

Of course, you could just be like most other posters here and read Scott Hahn, Catholic Answers guides to various issues, and nothing else. Then you could spend your time reducing traditionalist concerns to the level of private opinion, all the while giving all the fuel to the fire necessary for those who would continue a deepening and increasingly dangerous schismatic course.

Lets offend the schismatic traditionalists back into the fold by arguing against the Pope! That’ll work!!

You guys are GREAT Catholics. Way to go!!

Is your purpose here to expound on what a wonderful Catholic you are as opposed to us who disagree with you as much lesser Catholics?

You have taken the the fact that we now have The Luminous mysteries and the change in the Stations of The Cross (which one can choose to do or not) and made it into this long diatribe.

You can claim it is simply not your opinion when very clearly it is.
You really do seem to have this elevated sense that you are somehow above all of us here at CAF!

 

[Tommy_Joe]

You have my prayers.

No need,…but would you mind saying a few for me for the Church, as it slowly tears itself apart?

 

[cathguy]

Is your purpose here to expound on what a wonderful Catholic you are as opposed to us who disagree with you as much lesser Catholics?

You have taken the the fact that we now have The Luminous mysteries and the change in the Stations of The Cross (which one can choose to do or not) and made it into this long diatribe.

You can claim it is simply not your opinion when very clearly it is.
You really do seem to have this elevated sense that you are somehow above all of us here at CAF!

What are you TALKING ABOUT!?

Go back and READ, especially the original post.

The idea of this thread was to discuss some of the changes to traditional Catholic praxis made during the reign of John Paul II and compare that with the direction Benedict XVI is taking the Church.

The question that was asked has been asked by MANY traditionalist scholars, INCLUDING THE CURRENT POPE, thus this is not simply a matter of my “opinion.” “I like blue more than purple” is an opinion. “The destruction of the Church’s cultural and liturgical heritage in the years following the Second Vatican Council has caused, or at least abetted, a decline the likes of which the Roman Church might never have experienced in her past” is an argument that is difficult to refute.

If you READ what has been posted (I don’t think you have) you can see that ENTIRE argument centers around a hermeneutic of continuity, and the reality of LOSS is the post VII years. It also focuses on asking the question WHY regarding the changes John Paul made to traditional Catholic piety.

When this question was asked, the response from the crowd was (as I knew it would be) “the POPE has the AUTHORITY to do these things! Leave it alone!” Of COURSE HE DOES. The question isn’t whether or not the Pope had the authority, the question was whether or not the changes were pastorally prudent or good for the Church.

The thread was designed to take a look at one prominent scholars thesis, that there is a difference between John Paul II and Benedict XVI that will have an effect on the direction of the Church, and analyze that.

If you want my personal opinion, it is that many of today’s Catholics who consider themselves orthodox but are otherwise hostile to Catholic tradition are exacerbating a problem rather than fixing it. Given the fact our Church is in steep decline, my personal opinion is that we must look to our past. This constant liturgical innovation and protestantization of Catholic piety seems to have been disastrous, and staying the course seems stubborn and wrong headed.

The comments about Scott Hahn and CAF stand. I think it is clear that there is a generation of mostly young Catholics coming up who have NO IDEA what the CULTURAL, ARTISTIC, and SPIRITUAL PATRIMONY of the Church is, because they are informed only by recent Converts, their popular writings, and the modern Catholic apologetics movement. Furthermore, such Catholics only know the Novus Ordo, and this celebrated in a manner that is hardly reflective of a hermeneutic of continuity, but rather is akin to a protestant service.

There is SO MUCH MORE of our heritage that MANY if not MOST orthodox Catholics I dialog with know about. Just saying “the protestants are wrong and we right” and examining why does NOT make for a thorough Catholic education.

If I am dismissive of the one sentence posts that only attack tradition, and if you feel that you are being talked down to when I recommend serious scholarship in the face of popular apologetics then, unfortunately, I can only recommend that you do some reading before posting one sentence missives when presented with arguments of weight in favor of Catholic tradition.

 

[cathguy]

I read your “argument” and frankly, I don’t see where there is any cause for one. It seems to me to be a case of making a mountain from a molehill. John Paul II did not change anything in either the Rosary or the Stations of the Cross. He did not change the structure of the Rosary as a prayer, It is meant to be said as a contemplation of the mysteries of the life of Christ. By adding the Luminous Mysteries, John Paul II gave us the option to also contemplate on a most important part of Christ’s life - His public ministry. Why traditionalists would object to this is way beyond my understanding. No one is compelled to say the Luminous Mysteries so what’s the argument?
Same with the Stations of the Cross. The traditional form of the Via Crucis, with its fourteen stations is still considered the typical form, Nothing has been altered in it. The Scriptural Stations are an alternative form that can be used from time to time if so desired. No changes have been made to the original pious devotion which by the way, can differ in small details from country to country.

What proof do you have for this statement? Giving options to pious religious devotions , which means a Catholic can choose for him or herself whether or not to avail themselves of it, is not the same as an encyclical such as Humanae Vitae.

Even though this post is critical of me, it is excellent. Thanks.

I agree with you regarding the Rosary. The luminous mysteries are wonderful, and I like saying them. Many traditionalists I have spoken to find them disconcerting, I do not.

The Stations of the Cross, as it adorns the walls of many Churches is more problematic. Why take a practice that is falling into disuse and muddy it further by changing it? Why not reintroduce it to the faithful?

The discussion has gotten heated (as it always does) because those who are opposed to traditional liturgy and piety tend to spend quite a bit of time in this traditional forum for some reason. I think if you went back and read my original post, it wouldn’t strike you as extreme at all.

AND the idea was not to discuss just these two things (The Rosary and the Stations) but rather to ask the question about the two Popes and the direction in which the new Pope was taking the Church vis a vis liturgy and piety.

I think this larger discussion is the interesting one, and therefore it is the one everyone will avoid so they can post one sentence missives.

Even though I am in the minority, I think it is very clear we need traditional liturgy and piety back and for the whole Church, not just those who “desire” it. Every Church in the WORLD should have one EF Mass that fulfills the Sunday obligation, and every Church in the world should take the steps necessary to celebrate the OF in a manner conforming with the Church’s larger tradition.

 

[ethelzguy]

What I gather from most of the posts here, is that it is clearly implied that JP2 was WRONG and B16 is RIGHT about the way things should be in the Church.

I think that is a poor attitude to have as a Catholic. The fact that B16 sees things differently that JP2 is just that. Differing views.

To claim that one was wrong and the other is right is simply an opinion that supports the propaganda of one faction within the Church, and a relatively small faction at that.

I suspect that you would find, if you did an honest survey, that 95%+ of Catholics today would have little to nothing negative to say about the Papacy of John Paul II.

 

[cathguy]

What I gather from most of the posts here, is that it is clearly implied that JP2 was WRONG and B16 is RIGHT about the way things should be in the Church.

I think that is a poor attitude to have as a Catholic. The fact that B16 sees things differently that JP2 is just that. Differing views.

To claim that one was wrong and the other is right is simply an opinion that supports the propaganda of one faction within the Church, and a relatively small faction at that.

I suspect that you would find, if you did an honest survey, that 95%+ of Catholics today would have little to nothing negative to say about the Papacy of John Paul II.

Would this same poll reflect those 80-90% who have never heard of Theology of the Body, don’t know the Church’s teaching on contraception, and don’t know that John Paul II opposed its use?

Look. You are reading me way too simply. I LOVE John Paul II. I am not a schismatic, nor do I think I am a better Catholic than other people (far from it!) I am probably the worst Catholic here.

What I am saying is that the changes away from traditional Catholic piety seem to have done harm to the Church as opposed to good (look at the statistics!). What I am saying is that TRADITION holds the answer to the challenges the Church currently faces.

This isn’t just an opinion! The current pontiff (whose opinion is the one that matters) seems to think so. A goodly number of the Church’s best (faithful) scholars seem to think so.

John Paul II, for all his GREAT strengths, and SAINTLY characteristics (I hope he is canonized soon!) presided over what was a period of great decline in the Church (ESPECIALLY in the West).

The Pope’s are not so sacrosanct that we can’t ask these sorts of questions.

And yes, I do think Benedict XVI has a somewhat different approach than the last Pope. I think it will be worth asking (in a different thread) the following question: if Pope John Paul II in 1986 followed the course Benedict XVI followed recently, could we have avoided a difficult and dangerous potential schism affecting (at last count) around 1 million Catholic souls. (FSSPX)

It is worth asking.

Sadly, I have seen some in this forum recently say to someone who was leaving for the SSPX something like this:

“Good. GO. Our gain will be there loss.”

That is the sort of invective against traditionalists that I would like to see stopped. I hope in that in the heat of battle I haven’t stooped to that level.

 

[ethelzguy]

John Paul II, for all his GREAT strengths, and SAINTLY characteristics (I hope he is canonized soon!) presided over what was a period of great decline in the Church (ESPECIALLY in the West).

But how does one definitively determine that the actions or lack thereof of JPII caused said decline? How do we know that he didn’t put the brakes on a greater decline?

Therein lies the problem. This is God and the Holy Spirit we are talking about here. It’s not as simple as a graph or chart in a board meeting.

For all we know, JPII SAVED the Chruch from incredible destruction.

 

[ProVobis]

As for the Luminous Mysteries… I think them a good addition. Given JPII’s extreme devotion to Our Lady, it is no surprise he would further complete the Rosary.

So how much further do we have to go to FULLY complete it?

 

[ProVobis]

Your opinions are definately lengthy I give you that!

As are your quotes.

 

[Frosty]

.

The Stations of the Cross, as it adorns the walls of many Churches is more problematic. Why take a practice that is falling into disuse and muddy it further by changing it? Why not reintroduce it to the faithful?
The discussion has gotten heated (as it always does) because those who are opposed to traditional liturgy and piety tend to spend quite a bit of time in this traditional forum for some reason. I think if you went back and read my original post, it wouldn’t strike you as extreme at all.

AND the idea was not to discuss just these two things (The Rosary and the Stations) but rather to ask the question about the two Popes and the direction in which the new Pope was taking the Church vis a vis liturgy and piety.

I think this larger discussion is the interesting one, and therefore it is the one everyone will avoid so they can post one sentence missives.

Even though I am in the minority, I think it is very clear we need traditional liturgy and piety back and for the whole Church, not just those who “desire” it. Every Church in the WORLD should have one EF Mass that fulfills the Sunday obligation, and every Church in the world should take the steps necessary to celebrate the OF in a manner conforming with the Church’s larger tradition.

As regards the part of your post I put in bold: I wonder how many churches you have seen with anything but the traditional Stations of the Cross? During my adulthood I have lived in 6 different countries on three continents. Apart from that I do a great deal of travelling and I’ve lost track of the number of churches I’ve been in. One thing I have always checked out is the style used for the Stations. Probably because the ones in the church of my hometown were donated by my grandparents. I’ve seen all sorts of representations on all sorts of different backgrounds and materials. Some were horribly tacky [to me anyways], some were absolutely glorious. The point is that I have never yet run across anything but the traditional ones. Are there the alternative ones in some churches? Probably, but I doubt if there are many.
I also think that it is a rather sweeping statement to say that it has fallen into disuse. Even in pre V2 times, the Via Crucis was in many places reserved only for Lent and First Fridays. In my hometown, we also had it every Sunday evening before Benediction but I know that was not the practice everywhere, even in my Archdiocese. In the Archdiocese where I now live, many parishes have the Stations the same as previously, First Fridays and of course, all the Fridays during Lent and on Good Friday.
Now to your OP. I don’t agree with all that Eaamon Duffy says. I have an idea where he is coming from though. My mother grew up with the same pre-consular type of Irish pious devotions that he did. The thing is that each country has always had pious devotions that are indigenous to their own culture and that other nationalities would find extremely bizarre. The Church has always recognized this and promoted those devotions as long as they are genuine and conformed to the doctrine, legal discipline and norms of the Church.
John Paul II was all for popular piety as long as it predisposed people for the celebration of the Liturgy. He tirelessly promoted the Rosary throughout his pontificate. Whether or not he could have done more to curb some of the excesses found in celebrations of the Eucharist is a question I don’t have an answer for. Many traditionalists will say that he was abdicating his authority by not doing so. I disagree. He certainly wrote and spoke often enough on the Liturgy and how it should be implemented. He didn’t see it as his job to micromanage the entire Church. It is up the various national councils of Bishops to see that directives from Rome are followed We all know that. That some Bishops didn’t and don’t follow directions well is not a big surprise and actually, this is not something new to todays Church. On the other hand, there are a great many who do follow well. There seems to be a tendency amongst many traditionalists to make extremely sweeping statements, sometimes based on their own personal experiences, here-say, gossip and sometimes twisted versions of the truth, which basically condemn the entire Church throughout the world as riddled with liturgical abuses.
John Paul II, in my opinion, felt more of a greater urgency to keep bringing the Word of God to the entire world. Whether everyone listened to him or not, he never deviated from spreading the Truth and keeping Catholicism in the face of the world.
I think Pope Benedict XVI has benefitted a good deal from this aspect of John Paul’s pontificate. Interest in the papacy has certainly increased and more people now seem willing to listen and engage with the Church. It doesn’t hurt either that Pope Benedict is arguably one of the most intelligent men alive today, a gifted scholar and palpably holy. Where he takes us regarding the Liturgy will be most interesting. There is no doubt that he earnestly desires more reverence in the Mass and having the OF celebrated the way it was meant to be. However, IMO I fear that many traditionalists high hopes for a return to strictly the EF, nothing but Latin, etc will not be met. Papa Benedict is a very practical man. He knows what is going on in the Church, not just the U.S. but universally. I’m sure he knows that the desire for the EF is not terribly widespread. He is well aware of the shortage of priests and the pastoral difficulties of caring for the majority of the faithful. He was very prudent, I think, in his accompaning letter to the Bishops when issuing SP to say that after three years a reassessment would be done. Personally, I do believe that all Catholics should have access to the EF but I also think it is naive to ask for one each Sunday in every parish if there are only a handful of people who desire it or if, as in many, many instances, none at all. Perhaps one parish in every town or city would more realistically meet the needs, at least for the present time.

 

[ProVobis]

You have my prayers.

Yes, but can you give blessings too?

 

[cathguy]

As regards the part of your post I put in bold: I wonder how many churches you have seen with anything but the traditional Stations of the Cross? During my adulthood I have lived in 6 different countries on three continents. Apart from that I do a great deal of travelling and I’ve lost track of the number of churches I’ve been in. One thing I have always checked out is the style used for the Stations. Probably because the ones in the church of my hometown were donated by my grandparents. I’ve seen all sorts of representations on all sorts of different backgrounds and materials. Some were horribly tacky [to me anyways], some were absolutely glorious. The point is that I have never yet run across anything but the traditional ones. Are there the alternative ones in some churches? Probably, but I doubt if there are many.
I also think that it is a rather sweeping statement to say that it has fallen into disuse. Even in pre V2 times, the Via Crucis was in many places reserved only for Lent and First Fridays. In my hometown, we also had it every Sunday evening before Benediction but I know that was not the practice everywhere, even in my Archdiocese. In the Archdiocese where I now live, many parishes have the Stations the same as previously, First Fridays and of course, all the Fridays during Lent and on Good Friday.
Now to your OP. I don’t agree with all that Eaamon Duffy says. I have an idea where he is coming from though. My mother grew up with the same pre-consular type of Irish pious devotions that he did. The thing is that each country has always had pious devotions that are indigenous to their own culture and that other nationalities would find extremely bizarre. The Church has always recognized this and promoted those devotions as long as they are genuine and conformed to the doctrine, legal discipline and norms of the Church.
John Paul II was all for popular piety as long as it predisposed people for the celebration of the Liturgy. He tirelessly promoted the Rosary throughout his pontificate. Whether or not he could have done more to curb some of the excesses found in celebrations of the Eucharist is a question I don’t have an answer for. Many traditionalists will say that he was abdicating his authority by not doing so. I disagree. He certainly wrote and spoke often enough on the Liturgy and how it should be implemented. He didn’t see it as his job to micromanage the entire Church. It is up the various national councils of Bishops to see that directives from Rome are followed We all know that. That some Bishops didn’t and don’t follow directions well is not a big surprise and actually, this is not something new to todays Church. On the other hand, there are a great many who do follow well. There seems to be a tendency amongst many traditionalists to make extremely sweeping statements, sometimes based on their own personal experiences, here-say, gossip and sometimes twisted versions of the truth, which basically condemn the entire Church throughout the world as riddled with liturgical abuses.
John Paul II, in my opinion, felt more of a greater urgency to keep bringing the Word of God to the entire world. Whether everyone listened to him or not, he never deviated from spreading the Truth and keeping Catholicism in the face of the world.
I think Pope Benedict XVI has benefitted a good deal from this aspect of John Paul’s pontificate. Interest in the papacy has certainly increased and more people now seem willing to listen and engage with the Church. It doesn’t hurt either that Pope Benedict is arguably one of the most intelligent men alive today, a gifted scholar and palpably holy. Where he takes us regarding the Liturgy will be most interesting. There is no doubt that he earnestly desires more reverence in the Mass and having the OF celebrated the way it was meant to be. However, IMO I fear that many traditionalists high hopes for a return to strictly the EF, nothing but Latin, etc will not be met. Papa Benedict is a very practical man. He knows what is going on in the Church, not just the U.S. but universally. I’m sure he knows that the desire for the EF is not terribly widespread. He is well aware of the shortage of priests and the pastoral difficulties of caring for the majority of the faithful. He was very prudent, I think, in his accompaning letter to the Bishops when issuing SP to say that after three years a reassessment would be done. Personally, I do believe that all Catholics should have access to the EF but I also think it is naive to ask for one each Sunday in every parish if there are only a handful of people who desire it or if, as in many, many instances, none at all. Perhaps one parish in every town or city would more realistically meet the needs, at least for the present time.

What a thoughtful comment! Thanks!

Let me re-read and formulate a response later. For now I can safely say I agree with the majority of what you wrote.

 

[ethelzguy]

Yes, but can you give blessings too?

I think I can ask blessings but not give them, bein as I ain’t ordained or nuthin’

 

[CassiusLonginus]

Aren’t we supposed to pray one third of Mary’s psalter every day?

 

[cathguy]

As regards the part of your post I put in bold: I wonder how many churches you have seen with anything but the traditional Stations of the Cross? During my adulthood I have lived in 6 different countries on three continents. Apart from that I do a great deal of travelling and I’ve lost track of the number of churches I’ve been in. One thing I have always checked out is the style used for the Stations. Probably because the ones in the church of my hometown were donated by my grandparents. I’ve seen all sorts of representations on all sorts of different backgrounds and materials. Some were horribly tacky [to me anyways], some were absolutely glorious. The point is that I have never yet run across anything but the traditional ones. Are there the alternative ones in some churches? Probably, but I doubt if there are many.

This point is beyond dispute. Thanks for making it.

I also think that it is a rather sweeping statement to say that it has fallen into disuse. Even in pre V2 times, the Via Crucis was in many places reserved only for Lent and First Fridays. In my hometown, we also had it every Sunday evening before Benediction but I know that was not the practice everywhere, even in my Archdiocese. In the Archdiocese where I now live, many parishes have the Stations the same as previously, First Fridays and of course, all the Fridays during Lent and on Good Friday.

This paragraph is not as clear and well argued as your first, and I think any objective look at the data shows you are wrong.

Consider the devotional life of the pre-Vatican II Church and compare/contrast to the devotional life of the post-Vatican II Church. Look at the DATA. (“The Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church in America” is a good book to check out)

The REALITY is that ALL devotions are falling into disuse, as has Mass attendance itself. In terms of the sacraments, the sacrament of penance has also fallen into extreme neglect.

This is NOT the result of my taking my personal experience and blowing it out of proportion. It comes from a familiarity with the data.

The Stations have fallen into near universal neglect. That is a fact.

Now to your OP. I don’t agree with all that Eaamon Duffy says. I have an idea where he is coming from though. My mother grew up with the same pre-consular type of Irish pious devotions that he did. The thing is that each country has always had pious devotions that are indigenous to their own culture and that other nationalities would find extremely bizarre. The Church has always recognized this and promoted those devotions as long as they are genuine and conformed to the doctrine, legal discipline and norms of the Church.
John Paul II was all for popular piety as long as it predisposed people for the celebration of the Liturgy. He tirelessly promoted the Rosary throughout his pontificate. Whether or not he could have done more to curb some of the excesses found in celebrations of the Eucharist is a question I don’t have an answer for. Many traditionalists will say that he was abdicating his authority by not doing so. I disagree.

]Interesting comment. However, John Paul II himself towards the end of his life questioned if he had done enough to reign in dissent. He asked the question many others are asking. Theologians openly questioning the resurrection and the virgin birth were tolerated; they could publish anything they want and it seemed they had near carte blanche to do so.

YET, traditionalists felt the heat of ecclesial discipline and the (we now know unnecessary and probably unlawful) suppression of the TLM. Why?

He certainly wrote and spoke often enough on the Liturgy and how it should be implemented. He didn’t see it as his job to micromanage the entire Church. It is up the various national councils of Bishops to see that directives from Rome are followed We all know that.

Well, on this you and I disagree. The recent fiasco with the USCCB holding up the entire world because of assumptions that the laity are too stupid to understand authentic translations of the collects are a prime example of local Bishops conferences NOT doing their job as Rome would expect them to. It seems NOW there is discipline. That is good thing.

That some Bishops didn’t and don’t follow directions well is not a big surprise and actually, this is not something new to todays Church.

How about MOST Bishops.

On the other hand, there are a great many who do follow well.

A great many? Given recent data available on both the sex abuse crisis and the crisis in the liturgy I would put the number around one third.

There seems to be a tendency amongst many traditionalists to make extremely sweeping statements, sometimes based on their own personal experiences, here-say, gossip and sometimes twisted versions of the truth, which basically condemn the entire Church throughout the world as riddled with liturgical abuses.

With all due respect, this is the portion of your post I take umbrage with. The data are the data. If you don’t like the data regarding the decay of the Church these past 40 years, it does you no good to bury your head in the sand and pretend that traditionalists are making it all up. While I am sympathetic and can agree with most of your post, this part is, quite frankly, nearly laughable.

John Paul II, in my opinion, felt more of a greater urgency to keep bringing the Word of God to the entire world. Whether everyone listened to him or not, he never deviated from spreading the Truth and keeping Catholicism in the face of the world.

True! John Paul DID want to bring the Word of God to the entire world. DId he ignore all the problems at home in the process?

I think Pope Benedict XVI has benefitted a good deal from this aspect of John Paul’s pontificate. Interest in the papacy has certainly increased and more people now seem willing to listen and engage with the Church.

What? We live in a time of the greatest internal dissent from Church teaching in history.

It doesn’t hurt either that Pope Benedict is arguably one of the most intelligent men alive today, a gifted scholar and palpably holy. Where he takes us regarding the Liturgy will be most interesting. There is no doubt that he earnestly desires more reverence in the Mass and having the OF celebrated the way it was meant to be.

YES!

However, IMO I fear that many traditionalists high hopes for a return to strictly the EF, nothing but Latin, etc will not be met.

Who here has called for this? The Gregorian Mass ought to be celebrated in every Church throughout the world around once a week. Around here there are Churches that offer like 8 Masses that fulfill the Sunday obligation and the pews for them all are RARELY if EVER filled. We can’t take one of those and make it a TLM? HOW STINGY!!!

Papa Benedict is a very practical man. He knows what is going on in the Church, not just the U.S. but universally. I’m sure he knows that the desire for the EF is not terribly widespread.

Neither is the desire to hear the truth regarding Humane Vitae terribly widespread. According to the best statistics, 10% - 20% of PRACTICING Catholics adhere to the Church’s teaching on contraception. That is scary. Just because people don’t want it, doesn’t mean they don’t NEED it.

He is well aware of the shortage of priests and the pastoral difficulties of caring for the majority of the faithful. He was very prudent, I think, in his accompaning letter to the Bishops when issuing SP to say that after three years a reassessment would be done. Personally, I do believe that all Catholics should have access to the EF but I also think it is naive to ask for one each Sunday in every parish if there are only a handful of people who desire it or if, as in many, many instances, none at all. Perhaps one parish in every town or city would more realistically meet the needs, at least for the present time.

On this I think you miss the point. With such widespread abuse, and such unwillingness to celebrate the OF in a way that reflects a hermeneutic of continuity, the ONLY way to get priests to understand is to require them to become versed in the old rite. The celebration of the old is the prerequisite for understanding how to celebrate the new.