Posted on 03/22/2006 2:47:32 PM PST by pravknight
Really, I find that true about the neo-Caths, do they believe in birth control or not? Do they believe in the real presence or not? Is it okay for nuns to do homilies or not? Are clown Masses acceptable liturgy or not? If only it were possible to learn what the position of the neo-Catholics actually is.
I don't know what a "neo-Catholic" is. However, Catholics such as myself, who are loyal to the magisterium, reject contraception because it is immoral. Similarly, we would never approve of "clown" Masses or of nuns delivering homilies since such practices violate the rubrics and the dignity of the Mass.
The only Catholics who would approve of such things are those who dissent from Church teachings, namely those with Modernist leanings. I have never come across any "conservative," traditional-minded Catholic who approves of anything like this. When you find one, let me know.
Here's the biggest one. Some traditionalists--not all--claim that they accept the teaching authority of the pope but they do so only as long as the pope agrees with "Tradition." They then set themselves up as the real arbiters of what that "Tradition" is. Thus, we have the sad spectacle of a man like Thomas Droleskey writing an article in the most recent issue of "Catholic Family News," in which he calls Benedict XVI's first encyclical, "Deus Caritas Est," a "masterpiece of Modernist obfuscation and fog." How can a Catholic assert that a papal encyclical is in error unless that Catholic does not accept the pope's authority?
A catholic who is liberal and wants to change the culture of the church rather than leave it.
However, Catholics such as myself, who are loyal to the magisterium, reject contraception because it is immoral. Similarly, we would never approve of "clown" Masses or of nuns delivering homilies since such practices violate the rubrics and the dignity of the Mass.
Sounds like traditionalism to me.
The only Catholics who would approve of such things are those who dissent from Church teachings, namely those with Modernist leanings.
AKA neo-Catholics. If some of those things are merely abuses, why weren't those abuses happening prior to VaticanII?
Are you saying that Catholics who disapprove of the abuses that you cite have Modernist leanings?
Also, it is a logical fallacy to assert that because one event precedes another event in time that the first event caused the second. Yes, abuses occurred after Vatican II but these abuses were not caused by the Council but rather by the deliberate misinterpretation of the Council. But, for the extremist Traditionalists, blaming the Council is just a whole lot easier than trying to draw such distinctions.
That's a good example. I suppose any Catholic may assert anything he wishes and be wrong. I read Deus Carites Est and thought it an excellent expression, but without testing for upholding Tradition. An ecclesial document of obfuscation and fog seems, if not quite Tradition, at least traditional.
I don't know Mr. Droleskey's argument, or even that he accepts the authority of the Pope. He may be right in one area and wrong in another. He may be totally off his rocker, but he has reason for alarm.
I had to go back to your previous post where you wondered "if only it were possible to learn what the position of the traditionalists actually is." For that you have to compare the New Mass with the Latin Mass, and the physical changes to Catholic churches in the last forty years. I know people who love the New Mass, and may even think it a great improvement; Saturday service so it doesn't interfere with Sunday fun, guitars and drums, laughter and applause, tabernacles relocated out of the way, no need to kneel, sins forgiven automaticly. Hey, what's not to like? (unless you're some weirdo dinosaur trad)
Did you know, the entire Mass is prayer? The idea is not "go to church" but pray the Holy Mass. One may receive the sacrament of Holy Communion at the New Mass, but with loss of reverence to God (in my opinon) and greater glory to Man (also my opinion). Hooray for the people who find spiritual fulfillment there, and many do. I feel very fortunate in my circumstance after reading many FReeper's posts about the goings-on, and shopping for a parish in their onw cities. Traditionalists may have seen the New Mass as a great hope, but now think it an experiment turned sour, or perhaps an evil intention with a measure of success.
I believe I said the opposite.
Also, it is a logical fallacy to assert that because one event precedes another event in time that the first event caused the second. Yes, abuses occurred after Vatican II but these abuses were not caused by the Council but rather by the deliberate misinterpretation of the Council.
This argument is disingenuous. These abuses do not happen for at least five centuries, then Vatican II (an unnecessary council) happens and Voila! abuses abound! But there's no connection at all, right. I guess there's no connection between the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror either.
Pyro,
All I can say is this...the Dolan excerpts are over 20 years old. These were written in response to and in defense of the formation of the SSPV. The whole reason the 9 priest broke away from the SSPX were over the acceptance or not of the 1962 Missal.
I personally share symphathies for the older rubrics and Missals, but I believe as a matter of consistency, we either accept the liturgical authority of Pope Pius XII or we don't. The problem with the SSPV is that they pick and choose which Pius XII changes they will follow. The CMRI, another sedevacantist group, at least has the consistency to follow the Missal of 1958, that is, upon the death of and inclusive of the entire Pontificate of Pius XII.
That being said, TODAY's traditionalists are being well nourished by the 1962 Missal. I say we accept that fact, but we can have friendly and intellectually fruitful discourse about the pre-V2 changes. The proper venue for such discourse is here online and also perhaps we can start discussion groups at church. What we shouldn't do is tear down the vast number of traditionalists who follow the 1962 Missal.
When the 1962 Missal is put on a more normal footing, then, I believe the competent authorities need to carefully re-evaluate the pre-V2 changes, and produce a revised Missal, which will be the product of a truly traditional mindset akin the St. Pius X reforms of 1911.
I think it is quite possible to disagree with many of the changes that were made to the Mass in the years following the Council without concluding that the Missal of Paul VI is evil or illegitimate. Unfortunately, that is exactly the conclusion that the more radical traditionalists have come to. Moreover, they fail to distinguish between the authorized changes that have been made to the Mass and the many unauthorized experiments and innovations that all too many priests and liturgists have made. These latter cannot be blamed in any way upon the missal itself or upon the Second Vatican Council. Catholics need to have a reasoned discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of the current Roman Rite but a knee-jerk rejection of the so-called New Mass--it's not a new Mass, it's the Roman Rite--contributes nothing to this discussion. Finally, while the older form of the rite, the so-called Tridentine Mass, had its strengths, it also had its weaknesses. The fact is that it is possible for a priest to say either form of the Roman Rite badly. Having grown up in the era of the Council and its aftermath, I have attended my share of English Masses in which the assembly was the focus of the liturgy, which was certainly a penance. But I have also had the misfortune of having attended several indult Tridentine Masses, which were said in such a way as to deny the people in attendance any opportunity to participate in them, except to receive Commiunion. These were not good either. Let's stop blaming the rite and start focusing on the abuses of the rite and on the ways to correct whatever inherent weaknesses it may have.
Rome should have simply stuck with her custom. There were precedents in various Medieval cognate usages of the Roman rite for other saints names being added to the canon.
It should have been left alone in deference to St. Gregory the Great who finalized the canon. Believe me, these liturgical changes dating back to St. Pius X's Breviary revisions are an ecumenical stumbling block as far as Orthodoxy is concerned.
Just because the Church can change things does not make doing so prudent or even wise. Besides who are you to say those who reject innovations aren't Catholic.
Revise the Mass, you revise the faith. Try to tell me the faith of ordinary Catholics today is the same as that of their grandparents or great-grandparents.
Please refrain from ad hominem attacks. Even if Bishop Dolan is a sedevacantist, please address his arguments, not his canonical status.
St. Pius X's breviary was a product of a similar mindset to that, which produced the Novus Ordo 60 years later. Change for change's sake.
Oh no, the prayers are TOO long, so let's shorten them. The people are too dumb(sarcasm) to say the entire Breviary in the order St. Benedict intended.
At least we Byzantines have not revised our Horolgion, and it remains the same as it was during the height of the Byzantine Empire 1,000 years ago.
Oh no, the prayers are TOO long, so let's shorten them. The people are too dumb(sarcasm) to say the entire Breviary in the order St. Benedict intended.
I agree 100%. The St. Pius X Breviary destroyed the basis of the Roman Breviary, which was that Matins covered Psalms 1 to 108 and Vespers covered Psalms 109 to 150, with Psalm 118 being the day hours. This made the whole thing much more complicated, since now the little hours varied every day.
If it really was "too long", the secular clergy could have been given the option of combining the little hours of Prime, Terce, Sext, and None into one longer midday hour, where Psalm 118 would be recited in its entirety, instead of being broken up over four hours. That wouldn't have required alienating the Breviary from tradition.
Bishop Daniel Dolan is not the same person.
That's quite a list of items in your post #29. I don't think traditionalists believe the New Mass inherently evil or illegitimate, but rather inferior. You may admit of objections as well. But promotion of the inferior is not a good thing. Let me begin with your comment:
"But I have also had the misfortune of having attended several indult Tridentine Masses, which were said in such a way as to deny the people in attendance any opportunity to participate in them, except to receive Communion."
The Old Mass takes effort to understand and follow. Some think it too difficult, too much trouble. If you find sanctity and holiness in the New Mass, good for you. Many people do. Many people have found a way to worship God in Pentecostal or Baptist churches; good, holy people.
A long examination of your question was happily posted just this morning, an essay written a couple years ago (which saves a lot of writing for me): The New Mass: A Return to Tradition???
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1602405/posts
The questioning of the New Mass is not "knee-jerk rejection" but a rather thorough-examination rejection. This has been a long learning process for me. I would not argue the New Mass has been beneficial for the Church, even though it certainly is beneficial for many faithful Catholics.
Thank you for your thoughtful explanation of the issues regarding the changes in the Mass and the Breviary. It's a shame that so much of the traditionalist literature is aimed at promoting the 1962 Missal. And, as you say, the discussions often go "over the top" and get off topic, or get bogged down by personalities. It's nice to read a level-headed analysis of the subject.
I will read the link you posted.
I agree that the Tridentine Mass takes effort to understand and follow, especially for people like myself who do not understand Latin. I attended an indult Tridentine Mass almost every Sunday for three years. At the end of the three years, I still could not speak or understand the prayers in Latin although I was able to follow a translation of the Mass in a missal. At that point I stopped going to the Tridentine Mass on a regular basis.
If others want to attend the Tridentine Mass, that's great. But I don't think that the solution to the Church's liturgical problems is to ditch the Novus Ordo and return to the older form of the rite unless that rite could be said in the vernacular.
I wouldn't have a problem with saying the old rite in the vernacular. The Anglo-Catholics have been doing so for over 100 years. Just attend "Mass" at St. Clement's Episcopal Church in Philadelphia, and you will see the old rite in English.
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.