|
|
Post by cato on Oct 30, 2021 21:47:19 GMT
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. There was very little resistance or objections. The Irish laity trusted the clergy and saw Vatican ii primarily in doing what the Pope wanted in relation to the mass. Most people were happy and abuses were relatively rare at first. Communion standing and in the hand were actually originally condemned by the Vatican and only legalised as liberal European churches simply ignored the pope. Arguably one of the only things the Irish Church did was to reform the liturgy. The other being the disastrous catechetical revolution. I recall hearing Archbishop Mc Quaid was unhappy with the liturgical changes but Rome retired him as soon as possible as he was seen as insufficiently enthusiastic about the new pentecost. People did resent the( unnecessary) liturgical reordering/church wrecking but it was only in the 1980s that people actually started to object. The Society of St Pius X came here in the the 1980s and the Dublin archdiocese permitted the old rite in the mid 1980s after Pope John Paul's approval. |
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Oct 31, 2021 3:24:18 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. We should refrain from over-simplifying the Last Supper a bit too much also: the Passover meal itself was highly ritualistic and the Gospels tell us that Christ himself put much emphasis on the preparations and furnishings of the cenacle. Even questions asked by the Twelve, as related in John's account of the long discourse,were probably part of a ritual according to scholars. If we consider Christ as performing a uniquely Essene version, as become the popular opinion some time ago, there were even more levels of meaning here.... Much of the traditional mass ritual is taken from the Old Testament- neither Christ nor his Apostles ever voluntarily turned their back on the Temple ritual, Paul obeyed it towards the end; according to legend James the Less had access to the Jewish Temple until his martyrdom. An Emeritus Archbishop mentioned another mystery about the first Eucharist in reflections that he self-published a few years ago: it was a bit freak to see MEN carrying water on their heads for the place and era. He had no answer as to the meaning (cfBJHickey, living biblically) |
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Oct 31, 2021 7:45:23 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. I'd respectfully suggest that the theory could easily be turned on it's head also- the modern church's obsession with community could be seen as idolatrous humanism; one of the last set of writings of Cardinal Ratzinger before his papal election was the very evocative Good Friday stations,where he complained that we often seem to only celebrate ourselves today. He included this with other forms of sacrilege. When instead of Attende Domine or Parce Domine (or Holy God We Praise Thy Name for an English example) we hear Gather Us In,...'We Are The Church' or,the ultimate absurdity in hymody,Here We Are,Altogether, are we not witnessing the symptoms? |
|
|
|
Post by Seán Ó Murchú on Nov 12, 2021 11:51:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Feb 4, 2022 15:22:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Feb 4, 2022 15:30:20 GMT
I read it a while back and my reaction was: "Typical rad trad rhetoric." Comparing the handful of Traditionalist churches to "Novus Ordo" churches is misleading. It would only make sense if there was a Traditonalist church for every "Novus Ordo" church. How many of them would then have congregations of even double figures? I absolutely agree the Traditionalist movement is vibrant but I don't think it can ever have appeal beyond a certain self-selecting demographic. As for his experience in his parish church, all I can reiterate is that it doesn't really fit with my own experiences. In many Ordinary Form Masses. It's hard not to feel that the reaction to Traditionis Custodes is almost justifying Traditionis Custodes. I know that won't be a popular opinion here. Heck, even my own wife disagrees with me on this, but there you go... I would have loved to see the reaction: "WHY did the Pope feel the need to do this? What might we be doing wrong?" But the reaction seems to have been entirely defensive, immediate, kneejerk... There's also the implication in the article that aesthetics, feelings, reactions is the guide one should follow-- not reason. |
|
|
|
Post by kj on Feb 4, 2022 18:59:30 GMT
The sneering contempt and sense of superiority toward "ordinary" Catholics I see in most of the online Trads is pretty revolting to me. Zero humility.
|
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Feb 6, 2022 1:48:10 GMT
I read it a while back and my reaction was: "Typical rad trad rhetoric." Comparing the handful of Traditionalist churches to "Novus Ordo" churches is misleading. It would only make sense if there was a Traditonalist church for every "Novus Ordo" church. How many of them would then have congregations of even double figures? I absolutely agree the Traditionalist movement is vibrant but I don't think it can ever have appeal beyond a certain self-selecting demographic. As for his experience in his parish church, all I can reiterate is that it doesn't really fit with my own experiences. In many Ordinary Form Masses. It's hard not to feel that the reaction to Traditionis Custodes is almost justifying Traditionis Custodes. I know that won't be a popular opinion here. Heck, even my own wife disagrees with me on this, but there you go... I would have loved to see the reaction: "WHY did the Pope feel the need to do this? What might we be doing wrong?" But the reaction seems to have been entirely defensive, immediate, kneejerk... There's also the implication in the article that aesthetics, feelings, reactions is the guide one should follow-- not reason. I don't find it particularly arrogant; perhaps his points have become a bit cliched,but the fact remains that traditional Mass groups and communities can and do show more vitality in areas such as vocations as some entire dioceses. The modern parish mentioned may have been extreme, but note that in some situations- the diocese I live in is one- the same church bureaucrats that what to close down the extraordinary form are also targeting the ordinary form parish with perpetual exposition and another ordinary form priest who says mass facing the tabernacle and encourages kneeling for Communion. It should be borne in mind that this is one of the harshest documents of it's kind in living memory. Would anyone suggest that there'd be no pointed replies if Rome suppressed totally Opus Dei (and priests of the Holy Cross) or groups around the world affiliated with the Knights of Columbus? Or if Rome suppressed the Neo Catecumenal Way- possibly the greatest vocational success since the Council? Comparison could be made with Francis' Candlemas statement that nuns should give priests lip when they detect sexism. Thankfully most of the sisters who had turned most rabid in recent decades are now often retired. Interestingly Sr Joan Chittister had once written a poem about the Presentation; she was the only person I know of who tore strips out of Simeon and Anna ("aged prophets and blind women who crucify your Son again")- obviously symbolic of those upholding Christian teaching. Meanwhile Sr Jeannine Gramick,after expulsion from her original congregation under John Paul's regime, receives a letter of congratulations from the current pontiff for New Ways' ministry to the gay community. Certainly there's doctrinal consideration and pastoral consideration- I might add that Rome has considered neither for the traditional Latin mass- but are we really going to get nitpicky over a young man recounting his own observation in an era when many of his generation don't attend Church or accept Christian ethics at all? |
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Feb 6, 2022 10:44:12 GMT
I read it a while back and my reaction was: "Typical rad trad rhetoric." Comparing the handful of Traditionalist churches to "Novus Ordo" churches is misleading. It would only make sense if there was a Traditonalist church for every "Novus Ordo" church. How many of them would then have congregations of even double figures? I absolutely agree the Traditionalist movement is vibrant but I don't think it can ever have appeal beyond a certain self-selecting demographic. As for his experience in his parish church, all I can reiterate is that it doesn't really fit with my own experiences. In many Ordinary Form Masses. It's hard not to feel that the reaction to Traditionis Custodes is almost justifying Traditionis Custodes. I know that won't be a popular opinion here. Heck, even my own wife disagrees with me on this, but there you go... I would have loved to see the reaction: "WHY did the Pope feel the need to do this? What might we be doing wrong?" But the reaction seems to have been entirely defensive, immediate, kneejerk... There's also the implication in the article that aesthetics, feelings, reactions is the guide one should follow-- not reason. I don't find it particularly arrogant; perhaps his points have become a bit cliched,but the fact remains that traditional Mass groups and communities can and do show more vitality in areas such as vocations as some entire dioceses. The modern parish mentioned may have been extreme, but note that in some situations- the diocese I live in is one- the same church bureaucrats that what to close down the extraordinary form are also targeting the ordinary form parish with perpetual exposition and another ordinary form priest who says mass facing the tabernacle and encourages kneeling for Communion. It should be borne in mind that this is one of the harshest documents of it's kind in living memory. Would anyone suggest that there'd be no pointed replies if Rome suppressed totally Opus Dei (and priests of the Holy Cross) or groups around the world affiliated with the Knights of Columbus? Or if Rome suppressed the Neo Catecumenal Way- possibly the greatest vocational success since the Council? Comparison could be made with Francis' Candlemas statement that nuns should give priests lip when they detect sexism. Thankfully most of the sisters who had turned most rabid in recent decades are now often retired. Interestingly Sr Joan Chittister had once written a poem about the Presentation; she was the only person I know of who tore strips out of Simeon and Anna ("aged prophets and blind women who crucify your Son again")- obviously symbolic of those upholding Christian teaching. Meanwhile Sr Jeannine Gramick,after expulsion from her original congregation under John Paul's regime, receives a letter of congratulations from the current pontiff for New Ways' ministry to the gay community. Certainly there's doctrinal consideration and pastoral consideration- I might add that Rome has considered neither for the traditional Latin mass- but are we really going to get nitpicky over a young man recounting his own observation in an era when many of his generation don't attend Church or accept Christian ethics at all? I certainly agree that the Traditionalist movement seems markedly successful when it comes to vocations and that's something that should be acknowledged. Admittedly when I wrote this article about vocations I found it hard to come across actual numbers, but I accept that it's the case. And that does give me pause for thought. I agree the document was harsh but to say: "Would anyone suggest there'd be no pointed replies..." Pointed replies would be a big understatement! The reaction seems more like howls of rage. I don't think I've even come across a single article, YouTube video, Facebook post, homily, tweet, blog post etc. where a Traditionalist contemplated that the Pope might be right, or at least right to some extent. When the successor of St. Peter writes; "An opportunity offered by St. John Paul II and, with even greater magnanimity, by Benedict XVI, intended to recover the unity of an ecclesial body with diverse liturgical sensibilities, was exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division", surely it deserves serious consideration. Surely "OK, Boomer" isn't a proper response to the Supreme Pontiff? It does admittedly raise the question of why other forms of divisiveness are tolerated, but that's a whole other issue. I do absolutely accept that it's better the writer of that article is going to Mass than otherwise. That's why I wouldn't hop onto that website and leave a critical comment, for instance. But asked about it here I would give my opinion (which is just my opinion, I accept). I could be mistaken, of course. I don't think the Pope is infallible in everything he says. If I thought that, I would have got the Covid vaccine. And I do think the motu proprio was unnecessarily harsh. But I don't think the Pope is talking out of his mitre, either. The Traditionalist movement wasn't content to be a refuge for people with a liturgical preference, an example of "diverse liturgical sensibilities", or even a distinct spirituality like the Catholic charismatic movement. It generally positioned itself as fighting for the soul of the Church, a "resistance", frequently casting doubt on the legitimacy (if not the validity) of the Ordinary Form. Of course this is not true of all Traditionalists, but sadly the "resistance" was loud and insistent and won the day-- so to speak. |
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Feb 6, 2022 11:37:39 GMT
If....etc...I wouldn't deny that the parochial problems alluded to do indeed exist- division in parishes, seminarians not being upfront about their intentions until after ordination, individuals and groups encouraging conspiracy theories about the Vatican Council... But they are just that- parochial problems- that bishops should have been capable of dealing with at a grassroots level....etc.... Iiiii did say this several months ago.... Your last paragraph possibly highlights a major reason for strong reactions- infallibility seems to play no role when we experience the last three pontiffs taking positions that seem opposing. Of course lay Catholics will react as do politicians at a sitting who believe in contrary directions. In our case the growth in recent months has been spontaneous. Hundreds of extra people have found their way to the chaplaincy,many after Traditionis Custodes, many unhappy with the general Catholic acceptance of lockdown and morally dubious vaccines, somehow deciding that the reaction of not worshipping as does their bishop or poor is an appropriate reaction to this. |
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Feb 6, 2022 12:41:58 GMT
If....etc...I wouldn't deny that the parochial problems alluded to do indeed exist- division in parishes, seminarians not being upfront about their intentions until after ordination, individuals and groups encouraging conspiracy theories about the Vatican Council... But they are just that- parochial problems- that bishops should have been capable of dealing with at a grassroots level....etc.... Iiiii did say this several months ago.... Your last paragraph possibly highlights a major reason for strong reactions- infallibility seems to play no role when we experience the last three pontiffs taking positions that seem opposing. Of course lay Catholics will react as do politicians at a sitting who believe in contrary directions. In our case the growth in recent months has been spontaneous. Hundreds of extra people have found their way to the chaplaincy,many after Traditionis Custodes, many unhappy with the general Catholic acceptance of lockdown and morally dubious vaccines, somehow deciding that the reaction of not worshipping as does their bishop or poor is an appropriate reaction to this. That's a good point about the "positions that seems opposing" and I won't pretend it hasn't caused me some inner conflict. I came to the conclusion that "seems" may be the keyword there. If we actually read the writings of the Pontiffs the continuity is more evident. And what discrepancies there may be should, perhaps, be put down to changes in the pastoral situation, not a discontinuity of doctrine. I realize many will find this "lame"-- there's a certain amount of cognitive dissonance on both sides-- I have found less cognitive dissonance in viewing the current Pope (whoever he is) as the mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit when he speaks on matters of doctrine. If the next Pope is Cardinal Sarah or Cardinal Burke, I will adopt the same approach. If it's Cardinal Marx I'll just become a Mormon. Interesting to hear about the chaplaincy, though. |
|
|
|
Post by cato on Feb 9, 2022 12:26:01 GMT
The sneering contempt and sense of superiority toward "ordinary" Catholics I see in most of the online Trads is pretty revolting to me. Zero humility. Have you a view KJ on the vitriol that Pope Francis feels compelled to heap on traditionally minded catholics in public? Many of the comments you made above could equally appeal to his nasty behaviour. |
|
|
|
Post by cato on Feb 9, 2022 12:52:27 GMT
When the Vatican sent out its consultation document on the usage of the Old rite a few years back the general reaction seemed to have been relatively benign among those who replied. Most bishops probably couldn't care less and a small number actively detest the old rite. Now a papacy that advocates empowering bishops has undermined their right to regulate the liturgy within their dioceses, (which also contradicts the second Vatican council).
We aren't allowed to know what the episcopal response was as the Vatican won't publish the results , even in redacted form.
I suspect one reason why the Pope issued this document was a wider one. He cannot tolerate any criticism of his increasingly personalised and unprecedented policies. Most of those with doubts are staying mum with their fingers crossed that he won't say or do something formally heretical.
The exception are the mainly lay , mainly US based trad blogging community who have criticised Francis largely because there is no one else able or willing to do so. They are individuals with no formal teaching authority but this papacy seems remarkably sensitive to their often over the top comments. Because of their comments all older rite mass goers must therefore be punished. Did anyone in Rome think about dialogue? Did anyone in Rome consider reaching out and offering to meet some of these critics? Would a papal document on the use and misuse of social media not have been a more productive approach?
|
|
|
|
Post by kj on Feb 9, 2022 15:29:13 GMT
Have you a view KJ on the vitriol that Pope Francis feels compelled to heap on traditionally minded catholics in public? Many of the comments you made above could equally appeal to his nasty behaviour. Sorry, but there's no comparison for me. The Pope may be blunt, but it's as nothing compared to the vitriol, extremism, superiority etc I have seen manifested in certain online Trad circles. And that's been there long before Francis ever became Pope. |
|
|
|
Post by cato on Feb 9, 2022 17:46:58 GMT
Have you a view KJ on the vitriol that Pope Francis feels compelled to heap on traditionally minded catholics in public? Many of the comments you made above could equally appeal to his nasty behaviour. Sorry, but there's no comparison for me. The Pope may be blunt, but it's as nothing compared to the vitriol, extremism, superiority etc I have seen manifested in certain online Trad circles. And that's been there long before Francis ever became Pope. The pope sets the tone for the church and his petty vindictive remarks undermine both his office and the valuable aspects of his message. Its a pity there is no one of statute among the hierarchy willing or able to tell him to stop. There appears to be a widespread culture of bullying in this pontificate. Ignoring the problem helps it thrive. Social media is a relatively new phenomena and there is a lot of extreme nastiness on various fora particularly Christian sites. It also has huge harmful addictive potential something becoming more and more apparent. I do genuinely think there is need for a church teaching document on modern communication and how to take part in it respectfully and ethically. |
|
