|
Post by Stephen on Aug 26, 2021 13:00:21 GMT
Is it me or does anybody else think the attack on tradition and Covid 1984 are linked? I wrote an article for the Burkean about the decline of poetry in the last fifty years or so. One commenter made a link with the liturgical changes after Vatican II. Might there be such a thing as "Traddie goggles?" (Ducks for cover.) What do you mean?
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Aug 26, 2021 14:16:09 GMT
I wrote an article for the Burkean about the decline of poetry in the last fifty years or so. One commenter made a link with the liturgical changes after Vatican II. Might there be such a thing as "Traddie goggles?" (Ducks for cover.) What do you mean? Seeing everything in terms of the Latin Mass, even where there is no real relevance.
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Aug 27, 2021 3:13:02 GMT
Seeing everything in terms of the Latin Mass, even where there is no real relevance. It can't be denied that it was an era of great upheaval. That there was at the very least a sociological connection (between the Mass and things like poetry) is not altogether incredible.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Aug 27, 2021 23:21:34 GMT
Seeing everything in terms of the Latin Mass, even where there is no real relevance. It can't be denied that it was an era of great upheaval. That there was at the very least a sociological connection (between the Mass and things like poetry) is not altogether incredible. Well, I was writing in the context of English language poetry, and the great majority of notable English language poets were Protestant or from a Prostestant background for centuries back. Also, I would contend that the decline was already very far advanced before the liturgical changes of VII.
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Aug 29, 2021 2:10:56 GMT
It can't be denied that it was an era of great upheaval. That there was at the very least a sociological connection (between the Mass and things like poetry) is not altogether incredible. Well, I was writing in the context of English language poetry, and the great majority of notable English language poets were Protestant or from a Prostestant background for centuries back. Also, I would contend that the decline was already very far advanced before the liturgical changes of VII. From Shakespeare to William Byrd's pre-conversion era to the Oxford movement, the influence of Catholic culture, and by extension it's liturgical expression,on those seperated from it should perhaps not be dismissed entirely. Even the predating of secular decline doesn't completely mean that a link can't be there. But, yes, they may be speaking of traditionally Catholic areas
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Aug 31, 2021 14:23:40 GMT
Seeing everything in terms of the Latin Mass, even where there is no real relevance. I think it is connected if you are discussing the post & pre conciliar mindset for Catholics today. There is a clear rupture in Catholicism and this affects every part of Catholic life (arguable everyone).
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Aug 31, 2021 15:19:51 GMT
Seeing everything in terms of the Latin Mass, even where there is no real relevance. I think it is connected if you are discussing the post & pre conciliar mindset for Catholics today. There is a clear rupture in Catholicism and this affects every part of Catholic life (arguable everyone). Hard to find any alternate conclusion since a general difference in mindset looks obvious. Only without a wide direct relation to the pre-1960s could the "new mass" have been proposed as the only one (as literally was attempted with this particular late motu proprio). In due time evidence will prove no one can change reality by imposing revisionist regulation nevertheless. Yet some kind of obscurist mission with increasing confusion bore some fruit here, on the internet if nothing more... In other words, both rites ought to be formally valid and the only legitimate "inchurch battle" being about how to live on most charitably side by side - like always - thus in practical terms precisely in the humble spirit of Holy Father Benedict XVI, without any sudden harsh restrictions or tragically foul words throwed in either direction.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Aug 31, 2021 15:28:41 GMT
I think it is connected if you are discussing the post & pre conciliar mindset for Catholics today. There is a clear rupture in Catholicism and this affects every part of Catholic life (arguable everyone). Hard to find any alternate conclusion since a general difference in mindset looks obvious. Only without a wide direct relation to the pre-1960s could the "new mass" have been proposed as the only one (as literally was attempted with this particular late motu proprio). In due time evidence will prove no one can change reality by imposing revisionist regulation nevertheless. Yet some kind of obscurist mission with increasing confusion bore some fruit here, on the internet if nothing more... In other words, both rites ought to be formally valid and the only legitimate "inchurch battle" being about how to live on most charitably side by side - like always - thus in practical terms precisely in the humble spirit of Holy Father Benedict XVI, without any sudden harsh restrictions or tragically foul words throwed in either direction. Reality: TLM is the Roman Rite. New Mass is a Protestant version of the Roman Rite that is a complete rupture with the past.
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Sept 1, 2021 8:40:53 GMT
Hard to find any alternate conclusion since a general difference in mindset looks obvious. Only without a wide direct relation to the pre-1960s could the "new mass" have been proposed as the only one (as literally was attempted with this particular late motu proprio). In due time evidence will prove no one can change reality by imposing revisionist regulation nevertheless. Yet some kind of obscurist mission with increasing confusion bore some fruit here, on the internet if nothing more... In other words, both rites ought to be formally valid and the only legitimate "inchurch battle" being about how to live on most charitably side by side - like always - thus in practical terms precisely in the humble spirit of Holy Father Benedict XVI, without any sudden harsh restrictions or tragically foul words throwed in either direction. Reality: TLM is the Roman Rite. New Mass is a Protestant version of the Roman Rite that is a complete rupture with the past. It might be argued that the reality can seem like this. But the term was often used by Pope Benedict;somehow I'd have respected his vision itself. I mentioned before that the feast of St John the Baptist's martyrdom in the extraordinary form has a second collect of martyr St Sabina- as we follow a Gospel passage showing the ugliest in femininity,the highest pinnacle of feminine spiritual beauty is seen also. Saturday's feast of St Augustine has a similar example of the meditative nuances that have disappeared from the modern rite. The liturgy has a second collect of St Hermes. Obscure as he was,his name is curious considering the scene in Acts where Paul and Barnabas tear their garments rather than be indentified with the god of this name. But before the classical age was over we get a glimpse of this Christian man who found no discrepancy between dying for Christ and bearing this name. There was no Puritanism in early Christianity. And it ties in with the great figure of Augustine,learned in classical mythology,in Roman worship,and even in the trendy mysticisms of the dying Roman world and who presided over his diocese as the Empire crumbled. Both men,not only emerge from the pagan world to become champions of the Church,but both,in their own way, even used their experience of it as a sometimes required step ladder.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Oct 7, 2021 11:24:57 GMT
Interview with Father Maximilian Mary Dean, tells the story of the Vatican plot to destroy the Carmelite Sisters of Fairfield, PA and all traditional orders. This is a Harrowing but vital testimony and report. What an extraordinary grief for the Sister and the faithful.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Oct 30, 2021 14:15:17 GMT
What I don't understand about liturgical traditionalism is how contrary it seems to the spirit of the Gospels. Jesus doesn’t seem at all to emphasise the niceties of ritual and ceremony. Quite the contrary. The huge number of passages where he castigate the Scribes and Pharisees for putting comparatively more emhasis on rules over spirit and intention would seem to point in quite the opposite direction. "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath", etc.
Look at the pages and pages of elaborate detail on how the Temple was to be built and how the sacrifices were to be conducted in the Old Testament, and then think of our Lord's almost brutal: "Not a stone will be left on a stone".
I say this with trepidation as I know how much the Latin Mass means to many here. I mean no offence, just being honest. I'm quite possibly completely wrong.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Oct 30, 2021 18:54:27 GMT
What I don't understand about liturgical traditionalism is how contrary it seems to the spirit of the Gospels. Jesus doesn’t seem at all to emphasise the niceties of ritual and ceremony. Quite the contrary. The huge number of passages where he castigate the Scribes and Pharisees for putting comparatively more emhasis on rules over spirit and intention would seem to point in quite the opposite direction. "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath", etc. Look at the pages and pages of elaborate detail on how the Temple was to be built and how the sacrifices were to be conducted in the Old Testament, and then think of our Lord's almost brutal: "Not a stone will be left on a stone". I say this with trepidation as I know how much the Latin Mass means to many here. I mean no offence, just being honest. I'm quite possibly completely wrong. I don't think anyone would disagree that it is the interior self where faith must lie. But you can as easily find a bad Catholic at a Novus Ordo as at a Latin Mass. So any kind of worship, and any kind of church could contain good or bad. That said, Jesus did preach at all the synagogues in Galilee and beyond. I suppose he could have avoided them if he wanted to make a conclusive statement about avoiding places of worship. He thought highly enough of the sacredness of the Temple to scatter the moneylenders. He constantly quoted the old prophets and psalms not only showing his fulfilment of the old testament but also to quote the wisdom of the past. He complied dutifully to the traditions of the Israelites, his presentation at the Temple as a youth and his journeys to Jerusalem for passover. At the last supper Jesus and the apostles sang the traditional hymns of the passover. So the faith of the believer is what matters rather than the empty bluster and show of the Pharisees and Scribes. But I think there is enough evidence to show that tradition, song and sacredness are good things in the worship of God. The Magi brought Gold, Frankincence and Myrrh to the baby Jesus. Mary, the sister of both Lazarus and Martha, anointed Jesus’ feet with a very expensive ointment, spikenard, six days before he was to be crucified (something Judas ironically objected to) but which Jesus allowed saying that he will not always be with us. At Mass, where more than one is gathered in his name he will be there, having something like incense burning is an allowable indulgence or celebration of the presence. The 'not a stone will be left on a stone' I take to be the outcome of the lack of belief of the Israelites, not a condemnation of the Temple itself.
|
|
|
Post by kj on Oct 30, 2021 19:57:49 GMT
What I don't understand about liturgical traditionalism is how contrary it seems to the spirit of the Gospels. Jesus doesn’t seem at all to emphasise the niceties of ritual and ceremony. Quite the contrary. The huge number of passages where he castigate the Scribes and Pharisees for putting comparatively more emhasis on rules over spirit and intention would seem to point in quite the opposite direction. "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath", etc. Look at the pages and pages of elaborate detail on how the Temple was to be built and how the sacrifices were to be conducted in the Old Testament, and then think of our Lord's almost brutal: "Not a stone will be left on a stone". I say this with trepidation as I know how much the Latin Mass means to many here. I mean no offence, just being honest. I'm quite possibly completely wrong. I completely agree with this. The Lord's Supper was a very humble, simple affair with Jesus and his friends (bar one). Plus as ever one man's tradition is another man's iconoclasm. I'm sure when the Latin Mass was first brought in the form so many Trads revere there were many horrified by the new innovations. There are plenty of stories in the Middle Ages of priests and congregations fighting to defend their local rituals against Roman imposition. Liturgical fetishisation can become just another form of idolatry.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Oct 30, 2021 20:27:48 GMT
What I don't understand about liturgical traditionalism is how contrary it seems to the spirit of the Gospels. Jesus doesn’t seem at all to emphasise the niceties of ritual and ceremony. Quite the contrary. The huge number of passages where he castigate the Scribes and Pharisees for putting comparatively more emhasis on rules over spirit and intention would seem to point in quite the opposite direction. "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath", etc. Look at the pages and pages of elaborate detail on how the Temple was to be built and how the sacrifices were to be conducted in the Old Testament, and then think of our Lord's almost brutal: "Not a stone will be left on a stone". I say this with trepidation as I know how much the Latin Mass means to many here. I mean no offence, just being honest. I'm quite possibly completely wrong. I completely agree with this. The Lord's Supper was a very humble, simple affair with Jesus and his friends (bar one). Plus as ever one man's tradition is another man's iconoclasm. I'm sure when the Latin Mass was first brought in the form so many Trads revere there were many horrified by the new innovations. There are plenty of stories in the Middle Ages of priests and congregations fighting to defend their local rituals against Roman imposition. Liturgical fetishisation can become just another form of idolatry. Correspondingly, it's interesting that there doesn't seem to have been much resistance to the liturgical changes in Ireland, unless I just haven't heard of it.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Oct 30, 2021 21:34:55 GMT
What I don't understand about liturgical traditionalism is how contrary it seems to the spirit of the Gospels. Jesus doesn’t seem at all to emphasise the niceties of ritual and ceremony. Quite the contrary. The huge number of passages where he castigate the Scribes and Pharisees for putting comparatively more emhasis on rules over spirit and intention would seem to point in quite the opposite direction. "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath", etc. Look at the pages and pages of elaborate detail on how the Temple was to be built and how the sacrifices were to be conducted in the Old Testament, and then think of our Lord's almost brutal: "Not a stone will be left on a stone". I say this with trepidation as I know how much the Latin Mass means to many here. I mean no offence, just being honest. I'm quite possibly completely wrong. I get a bit nervous when I hear about the spirit of the Gospels or the spirit of Vatican ii..... As Assisi already pointed out Christ chose to adhere (rigidly) to a very specific liturgical tradition which had a whole myriad of ritual rules. He was an observant Jew who saw prayer and communal worship as highly important. His death on Good Friday coincided with the paschal slaughter of the lambs in the Temple yards away from Calvary. The idea the mass is merely the last supper is rather low church Protestant but one all too common even in the church today. The catholic ritual represents the entire paschal mystery: eucharist, eternal sacrifice, death and glorious resurrection and not simply a reenactment of the Holy Thursday ceremony. The links with the Temple would take an age to comment on. Christ identifies himself with the temple . As almighty God it would seem odd if the worship that preceded his arrival was all suddenly swept away by a brand new religion born in 33AD. The first Christians continued to go to the temple and use Jewish scriptures until the two faiths parted. We inherited a huge amount of the Torah liturgy - tabernacles, altars, priests, vestments, liturgical seasons, etc. The idea we went from a simple friendship meal to a highly ritualised liturgy is an over simplified myth. There are many reasons why people love the old liturgy but many including myself simply want solemn beautiful God centred liturgy. The old Mass sadly is the only place where that is guaranteed outside of the Ordinarite and the Eastern rites. And the pope wants to destroy this rite and see us die off.....
|
|