Posted on 04/04/2004 4:01:06 PM PDT by Pyro7480
(Reprinted with permission from NEW OXFORD REVIEW, 1069 Kains Ave., Berkeley, CA 94706, U.S.A.)
Part I here
Part II here
Part III here
Liturgical Abuse
Faithful Catholics are rightly put off by the spectacle of priests and bishops breaking even the Church's much-relaxed liturgical norms, turning the Mass into a veritable showcase of liturgical abuse. All faithful Catholics are rightly repulsed by prelates dressed in rainbow-colored vestments, liturgies featuring dancing girls in defiance of a 1976 Vatican ruling, clergy sitting by while lay "ministers" distribute Holy Communion, and various pagan rituals incorporated into the Mass. And yet, sad as it may be, these and other liturgical anomalies are frequently in evidence even at papal Masses. What recourse is there in the fight against liturgical abuse when liturgical norms are not even upheld when the Pope celebraes Mass before hundreds of thousands?
Another factor that has bedevild attempts to set the liturgy back on a sane and solid footing has been the repeated willingness of the Holy See to reward liturgical disobedience. We all know the examples: Mass said facing the people, Communion in the hand to standing recepients by lay people of either gender, Communion of both species given at every Mass, the priest ad-libbing prayers, female lectors, female altar servers, etc. Experience has taught liturgical abusers that if they hold out long enough and make the abuse sufficiently widespread, the Vatican will eventually legalize the abuse. All to often, the abuse-now-turned-legal later comes to be officially trumpeted as a great boon to the Church. For example, one would wish that it was only with the greatest reluctance and with a continuing disapproval that the Holy Father broke with a 2,000-year-old continuous Catholic tradition of male-only altar service, reversing the direct condemnations of several popes, including his own in Inestimabile Donum. But it appears not to be the case. Rather, in his Angelus address (Sept. 5, 1995) the Holy Father affirmed:
"To a large extent, it is a question of making full use of the ample room for a lay and feminine presence recognized by the Church's law. I am thinking, for example, of theological teaching, the forms of liturgical ministry permiited, including service at the altar.... Who can imagine the great advantages to pastoral care and the new beauty that the Church's face will assume, when the feminine genius is fully involved in the various areas of her life?" (emphasis mine)
This vision of an ever-evolving and inculturated (a culture-determined) liturgy which emanates from the very top of the Church's hierarchy tends materially to undermine the work of groups such as Adoremus, which seek to move the Novus Ordo Mass in a more traditional direction. While the present Holy Father is certainly tolderant of an Adoremus-style celebration of the Novus Ordo, it cannot be said that he actively promotes it as the "true interpretation" of Vatican II. The most tangible evidence of this is the way in which his public Masses are celebrated. They are frequently worlds apart from the kind of liturgical celebration argued for by Adoremus. And the "progressive" nature of papal Masses is far from accidential, given that since 1987 he has had as has Mater of Pontifical Ceremonies one Piero Marini. Marini was the personal security of none other than Msgr. Annibale Bugnini, the chief architect of the liturgical "reforms" that have resulted in what the great liturgical scholar Msgr. Klaus Gamber has called "real destruction of the traditional Mass,... the traditional Roman rite with a history of more than one thousand years." Marini would by any historical standard be considered a liturgical radical and yet he is given wide latitude in crafting the most widely viewed Masses in the entire Church. Accordng to John L. Allen Jr. in the National Catholic Reporter (June 20, 2003);
"Marini...has the responsibility for putting liturgical principles into practice on the largest stage in the Catholic church, both in Rome and wherever John Paul goes around the globe.... More people have watched Masses planned by Marini than by any other liturgist in the world, which gives him enormous power to shape the public idea of what Catholic worship is all about
At times, this puts Marini in tension with some Vatican colleagues who don't share his reform-minded approach. Purists likewise sometimes complain that Marini's liturgies look too much like Broadway production numbers.
It's clear, however, that Marini has John's Paul's confidence. He has been dubbed the pope's "guardian angel" by the Italian press because he is forever at his side, handing him the pages of a talk, helping him into position. Marini shares this intimacy with two other men: John Paul's private secretary Bishop Stanislaw Dziwisz, and the head of the papal household, Milwaukee native Bishop James Harvey. As a sign of their special fraternity, the three men were ordained bishops together by the pope in a special ceremony on March 19, 1998."
As an added honor, all three men were elevated to the rank of archbishop at the same time the most recent group of bishops were named as cardinals. Is it any wonder that the liturgy in the Roman Rite is in a constant state of flux, when its most public implementation has been delegated by the Holy Father to a notorious liturgical innovator?
Conclusion
Truly, these are confusing times in the Catholic Church. I have tried to clarify that the source of at least some of this confusion is found in a place that many orthodox Catholics have been unwilling to examine. Until relatively recently, I shared this resistance. I expect there will be those who proclaim that this is all just "Pope bashing." It is not. Any annoyance with what I've written should at least be tempered by a realistic evaluation of the concrete examples that have been presented (and, unfortunately, a great many more could be).
We must remain cognizant of the fact that not every word spoken or action taken by the Pope is done in his capacity as the Universal Pastor. In fact, the vast majority of them are not. Having said this, one must immediately acknowledge that certainly there is clearly a grave danger in falsely concluding, as liberals do, that we can simply ignore the Pope when his opinions clash with our own, so long as he is not speaking ex cathedra. We must continue to reject and expose such pernicious error. Yet, we cannot continue to ignore the danger of the opposite extreme, an extreme which faithful Catholics are most prone to embrace in reaction the disobedience of liberals - that is, hyper-obedience. Such hyper-obedience is, in reality, a well-intentioned by humanistic attempt to counterbalance error and is thus itself an error. We all agree, in principle, that it is wrong to imbue the Pope's every example and utterance with infallibility. Yet, in practice, it seem that too many of us are driven to precisely this mistake.
The Catholic Church is directly established by our Lord Jesus Christ and enjoys His solemn promise that "I will be with you always, even unto the end of the age" and that "the gates of Hell will not prevail" against His Church. We do not trust in princes - even sometimes the princes of the Church - but in the solemn promises of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church will never defect from the Faith - our Lord has promised this. It is on the basis of this divine promise that we can "not be afraid" to look more honestly and prudently at some of the causes of the present confusion in the Church.
Yet, we cannot continue to ignore the danger of the opposite extreme, an extreme which faithful Catholics are most prone to embrace in reaction the disobedience of liberals - that is, hyper-obedience. Such hyper-obedience is, in reality, a well-intentioned by humanistic attempt to counterbalance error and is thus itself an error. We all agree, in principle, that it is wrong to imbue the Pope's every example and utterance with infallibility. Yet, in practice, it seem that too many of us are driven to precisely this mistake.
Words to reflect on ping!
| Rank | Location | Receipts | Donors/Avg | Freepers/Avg | Monthlies | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hawaii |
|
|
|
|
|
45.00 |
3 |
|
Thanks for donating to Free Republic!
Move your locale up the leaderboard!
You have a problem with this statement; I think it is on target!
Some on this website think the presence of women in the Church in any function but on their knees in the pews ought to be outlawed.
Most Catholics agree with the Pope on this one, Pyro.
Your articles have, to be frank, been nothing but the usual rants of arch-traditionalists. In most respects, they differ little from the garbage foisted on us from The Remnant. Other than a bit more respectful language, the NOR is becoming as strident as the rest of the far-right publications in the Church. Hell, even the Wanderer is more liberal than the NOR.
Sorry, but that's how I see them. Of course, I'm nothing but a liberal around here, so I know what I say will be dismissed.
But, my POV comes much closer to the views of the vast majority of Catholics in the pews than those of the Catholics who post on FR.
You're wrong. I'm a quite conservative, Vatican II Catholic. The overwhelming majority of Catholics in this country are quite comfortable with women lectors, female altar servers, and women in teaching theological positions.
There's nothing "secular" about that, at all.
That is, unless you are willing to label the Pope a secular liberal, which, come to think of it, you likely are willing to do.
Are you practicing a standup routine on the forum sink?
I appreciate hearing the "other side" from time to time, but you sir are extremely far from a conservative Catholic.
I follow the Church, doctrinally. That is conservative. I also applaud the Pope's efforts, liturgically and theologically. That also is conservative, or used to be.
I look liberal from where you stand, because, frankly, from where you stand, 98% of Catholics would be liberal.
Of course not, in the Jewish tradition of the time of Paul.
You read Scripture like a Baptist.
Nothing wrong with this, either. It will be a secular government.
You're a real throwback, aren't you?
See, I don't think the Church has been "de-stabilized." But, I'm not an arch-traditionalist, either. So I don't see things through that prism.
Actually, it had been practiced up until around 1969, so you're making it up as you go again "deacon".
I read scripture it as it's written, however the protestants read it. The scripture we're talking about is not a parable or colloquial in any way.
40 years ago a bunch of modernist liberals (like yourself) decided they couldn't make the square bible fit into their round heads. So now whenever they encounter a part that they don't like they make up something that sounds good, as you just did.
Now clearly written unambiguous scripture all of a sudden has new meaning. Liberals can also call themselves conservative.
Naughty naughty, sinky.
You ever thought about "truth in advertising"? Of course not. Saul Alinsky did not teach that.
Now, please tell us, how does having denied 2 doctrines within a week amounts to "I follow the Church, doctrinally"?
You should rephrase your statement above, quickly. Suggestion: something like "I do not follow the Church doctrinally, but pretend I do, and always attempt to convince others that I do."
I also applaud the Pope's efforts, liturgically and theologically. That also is conservative, or used to be.
Actually, if the Pope were to jump on Liturgical and Theological abuses, you will cease to be his admirer in a New York minute.
It was a custom, a practice, not a regulation for all times.
You confuse a non-essential, like females wearing headcovering in Church, with an essential. Paul did not make that mistake. He observed the custom of the time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.