Replies

The examples above are 180 degree shifts in the teaching of the Catholic Church.

What is the basis for such strong objection to a shift in the teaching of the Catholic Church. Do you not trust that the Holy Spirit was guiding the Church?

Consider that between the time of St. Pius X and Paul VI human knowlege, human development, literacy, and technology had increased exponentially. Civilization went from the horse and buggy to the jet age, from gas lights to universal electricity, from relative isolation to access to the world via radio, telephone and television....and the world shrinks even more as we type to one another through these modems. Why wouldn't the Church change? How could it not? It was ministering to an entirely different race of people. It is perfectly sensible to accentuate the Word to a literate and educated people. It was no longer necessary to appeal to the senses; a more intellectual approach could be taken in hopes of deepening man's understanding of God's love for His noblest creation, and man's responsibilities to that Creator.

Let us also not forget between the time of Pius X and Paul VI the unprecedented amount of carnage that occurred during two world wars and in the vicious oppression that was imposed in locations around the world. Wouldn't an increased emphasis on the community be perfectly fitting in a world culture capable of creating such destructive enmities? Do you not believe that the Holy Spirit was guiding His Church? Why do you not?

The history of the Church is one of adaptation and assimilation, and always.....always triumph. Saecula saeculorum. Let not your personal preference for and personal experience of the Tridentine mass jaundice your understanding of Christ's Church. No one faults you for that and all would approve of your devotion through that rite. But to condemn the normative rite, despite it's recent implementation, despite the widely publicized abuses, despite your personal preferences, despite the implied alterations in emphasis, is to condemn the real Power of the Holy Spirit that guides His Church.

Well--I agree with the gist of your comments; Pipeorg is also correct in his summary.

In short, so what? That the Church changes emphasis without changing doctrine is not a big deal. Was it prudent? Did the changes have the right effect? THOSE are the questions which Ratzinger and Gamber (and a number of others) are addressing. We shall see.

In minor criticism of your post, there's a good deal of 'progress' cited; I've always responded to the secular evolutionary types by asking them to demonstrate how the increase in the murder rate (e.g.) can be a sign of 'progress.'

STILL haven't gotten an answer.

You say this: "Consider that between the time of St. Pius X and Paul VI human knowlege, human development, literacy, and technology had increased exponentially. Civilization went from the horse and buggy to the jet age, from gas lights to universal electricity, from relative isolation to access to the world via radio, telephone and television....and the world shrinks even more as we type to one another through these modems."

This is the essence of Modernism--to believe our age is qualitatively different, that because we advance by means of technology, our wisdom also advances. But this is not the case--as a cursory glance at modern history itself would suggest. The idea that the same Church which survived the Roman Empire, the Crusades, the French Revolution, the First and Second World Wars, must now--in keeping with the times--suddenly revolutionize its doctrines and practices--is quintessentially foolish, as we now are coming to see. We are not a different "race of people", as you suggest, merely because we fly faster and can access the internet. We still suffer the effects of original sin. We still lust after forbidden fruit, we still feel envy and jealousy, we still steal and deceive.

Moreover, the assumption that the present approach of emphasizing the Word during Mass is, as you say, "more intellectual" is errant nonsense as anyone familiar with Patristics or with the Scholastic movement would testify. The change in emphasis was made primarily to attract Protestants, not to appeal to our Catholic intellects. The preconciliar Church itself, in fact, had always insisted on the marriage of reason and faith, and it had always affirmed the need for adjustment and change--but never for revolution. What you are claiming, therefore, is the modern sin of Pride--the idea that because we live in the present time, we are somehow a lot smarter than those who went before--and it is no wonder contemporary fruits are so bitter--pederasty, apostasy, widespread abandonment of the faith, none of which is evidence of wisdom or high intelligence.