Posted on 07/27/2005 1:05:40 PM PDT by GF.Regis
OLEAN -- Various columnists for this paper already covered the making of a new pope last spring to a fare-thee-well, driving the tormented editor to declare an informal moratorium on writing further copy about the pomp and circumstance surrounding Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's ascension to Benedict XVI.
We complied. So, in general, did the rest of the American print media, which these days, sadly, are trained by watching too much television to ignore anything that doesn't photograph well, or lend itself to colorful video, or where religion is concerned doesn't contain elements of movement and ceremony.
But in recent weeks, I've noticed a few short items creeping onto inside pages about the Holy Father's vision -- predicted here and elsewhere -- of a venerable Roman Catholic Church that more resembles the one of four decades ago instead of a global organization struggling to accept elements of modernity.
Starting the first week in October, a synod of Catholic bishops from around the world will meet in Rome to plot the future of the church under Ratzinger's leadership. A hefty working text has already been prepared for official consideration, and some sections have sporadically leaked to the Vatican press -- enough to suggest that Benedict XVI has no intention of mellowing from the hardrock conservative positions he held in his previous position as Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, a Vatican office tracing its pedigree directly back to the Inquisition.
Bottom line: Pope John XXIII's liberal changes stemming from the Vatican II conclave to take into account this planet's social and cultural and scientific developments not previously sanctioned by Rome are in deep trouble.
There are some key words in the working text that constitute predictable indicators -- some superficial, some profound. The "translations" below are my predictions, not actual descriptions in the Vatican document of suggestions.
Parish priests will be urged to prevent "profane" types of music from being played during Mass. Translation: Lose the guitars, flutes and drums, boys. It's back to Gregorian chants (which are specifically mentioned in the aforesaid text as more appropriate).
The tabernacle, a large container -- usually bejeweled and gold-plated -- which holds the wheat wafer Host that devout Catholics believe is the actual (not representative) body of Christ after consecration, must be given a "prominent" position on the altar instead of the corner or side repository popular after Vatican II. Translation: Altars, with the tabernacle right in the center as unmistakable focal point, will be turned back around to allow the priest to celebrate Mass in relative solitude with his back to the congregation, instead of facing and speaking directly to the faithful as Vatican II decreed.
Lay persons will participate in the Mass only in a "minimal" fashion. Translation: No more reading of Scripture lessons by members of the congregation, or carrying of the wine and water up the aisle to facilitate Holy Communion, or letting the non-ordained help distribute the Eucharist during that sacrament. Priests only, please, just like in the old days.
During "liturgical gatherings," Latin will be relied upon as the universal tongue instead of English and other regional languages. Translation: A return during celebration of Mass to the Latin liturgy, viewed as confusing mumbo-jumbo by many Catholics before Vatican II, cannot be far behind.
Priests should not be "showmen." Translation: All those brave fathers in Central and South America and Africa and elsewhere who have the courage to question corrupt and dictatorial governments, or the temerity to suggest social and cultural reform, will be muzzled.
The working document, by the way, singles out Catholic politicians who support abortion and divorced persons who remarry for particular criticism and specific proscription against receiving the sacrament of Holy Communion without first making a true confession to a priest. This will also affect various areas of the planet where an acute shortage of priests has triggered the practice of taking Communion after making one's peace with God in one's mind because the preparatory sacrament of confession simply isn't available.
Some Catholics, particularly elderly ones, would welcome these changes, whether they actually occur or not. Many of them hate the Vatican II reforms. I was sitting next to my late beloved and curmudgeonly father in the early 1970s when a bearded guitar-wielder first strode to the altar to play some inspirational song of hope. My father actually stood up in the pew to leave before my mother dragged him back down to the kneeling bench.
I also secretly prized during those days the frequent look of repugnance on his face during the newly instituted "kiss of peace," which soon evolved into a hearty-handshake-with-those-nearby section of the Mass. My father was one of the friendliest gentlemen on earth; he just liked to reserve his handshakes for persons he knew, or trusted, or was happy to see.
Casting aside all the paternal nostalgia, I'm wary of Benedict XVI's plans. This is a man whose mind sees cultural development as conspiracy.
He still condemns the use of condoms to fight AIDS in Africa. He's already bounced, without adequate explanation, the respected editor of a liberal Jesuit magazine in this country.
Many Catholics are unaware that Ratzinger even criticized the immensely popular Harry Potter books as harmful to children.
In a letter of praise two years ago to a narrow-minded German critic of author J.K. Rowling, then-Cardinal Ratzinger described her astoundingly successful books as "subtle seductions" for youths and works that "act unnoticed and by this deeply distort Christianity in the soul, before it can grow properly."
Get real. I personally think J.K. Rowling deserves some Nobel-level award for becoming a one-woman assault squad on illiteracy. Do you know how hard it is to pry kids away from the TV or iPod or cell phone and get them to actually read a book? The numbers are there. Rowling actually has children reading again, using their TV-stunted imaginations anew to convert print into thought, to transform type into imagery. Her harmless books are stimulating and superbly written, and most children understand they are merely interesting works of fantasy about magic and good and evil and pretend sorcery -- stuff kids are intrigued by and will find anyway.
If the new pope really wants to do some good in this vein, he should take a gander at the hideously violent and often demonically promotional TV fare that is available to the majority of toddlers and youngsters in this country. Talk then about conditioning senses and warping vulnerable minds.
In his years as a promising priest and bishop, Ratzinger was viewed as somewhat of a liberal and reform-minded theologian. He once wrote a short book that viewed Vatican II with enthusiasm and promise. In his previous post as protector of the faith, however, the native of Germany became more and more conservative until he was known and routinely described as "God's Rottweiler" -- a ferocious defender of venerable Vatican views and practices.
In an excellent article in the July 25 edition of the "New Yorker" magazine, Anthony Grafton describes him in this role as "a snapping guard dog who threatens all dissidents with appropriate punishment." Ratzinger, writes Grafton, "was a censor, and he did his job well."
Since last April, Catholic writers around the world, particularly in Europe and North America, in article after article, have speculated that Ratzinger will realize he is now the spiritual head of the oldest and largest religious organization on the planet and -- as the "New Yorker" writer puts it -- will now "show a milder countenance in his new office." Not very likely. As Grafton writes, Ratzinger has repeatedly denounced "the intellectuals who confused social reform with Christianity" and is at heart himself fearful about intellectual conclusions.
"The intellect," he once told a gathering of about 800 priests, "does not always grant vision, but provides the conditions for intellectual games, and artfully conjures syntheses into existence where there is really nothing but contradiction." Only faith, believes the new pope, will abide.
I agree with author Grafton. A prelate who's fearful that Harry Potter books will block the spiritual growth of young Christians "may find it harder than he thinks to take on modernity in all its sprawling strangeness."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Hanchette, a professor of journalism at St. Bonaventure University, is a former editor of the Niagara Gazette and a Pulitzer Prize-winning national correspondent. He was a founding editor of USA Today and was recently named by Gannett as one of the Top 10 reporters of the past 25 years. He can be contacted via e-mail at Hanchette6@aol.com.
This is a marvelous phrase and spot on descriptive of the dumbed down liturgy.
How old is she?
It's Friday and you said breast.
Greeting people isn't the issue it's the placement during the Sacrifice of the Mass. Putting it right after the Consecration tends to make the congregation think about themselves and; what seems like to conservatives, a veiled attempt to reduce contemplation of the Almighty which has become present to the congregation on the altar. It has nothing what so ever to do with greeting or not greeting our fellow Christians. Logically that should be at the beginning of the Mass. We are wary of this ceremonialistic greeting because, although it is good to have your friends and family in your prayers and to think about them, especially during the Mass, it is too easy for these formalisms to descend into a kind of egotistical trip when placed so close to the Consecration. At that point in the Mass we are suppose to be greeting God both in our hearts and collectively as the congregation.
Now that I think about it (amazing what sleep will do for you), none of the actual hymns listed are all that old.
Amazing Grace is either late 18th century or early 19th depending on who's history you read.
A Mighty Fortress is Luther so that is 16th century.
Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring (Zzzz) is Bach, so that's Baroque.
Compare that to "Tantum Ergo" and "Pange Lingua" which are St. Thomas Aquinas and 13th century. "Veni Veni Emmanuel" or "O Come O Come Emmanuel" is 8th or 9th century. All of that is chant and all have much more than three note up and three note down intervals. And all have text which is not heretical.
Check her out at
http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/jp2.htm
Scroll to the bottom photo.
I'm not so sure. One goes to church for some time before Mass to prepare for it in prayer. I have a feeling that put at the beginning of Mass that would be counter-productive. No matter where they put it the way we do the sign of peace right now is disruptive. At the beginning of Mass it would REALLY be disruptive and take people out of the worship mode.
It's been on my profile page for a year. :-D
This is a marvelous phrase and spot on descriptive of the dumbed down liturgy.
Yes, but liturgical minimalism was also way too prevalent in the pre-conciliar years too. If and when the traditional Mass is restored, this matter will have to be rectified as well, because the last thing we need is to "dumb-down" the old Mass too through irreverent, rush-job, non-participatory Masses.
Hence too we see, when comparing the Mass with the sacrifice of our Lord, how aptly the Council declared: "For the Victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who once offered Himself on the Cross, only the manner of offering being different. (ibid.,). For the difference between our offering and the offering of Christ is this, that ours is altogether bloodless, while the offering of Christ on the Cross was in blood in the manner shown. Nevertheless there was not one offering on the Cross and another in the Supper, but it was numerically one same offering: made ritually in the Supper, continued morally on the Cross; all this because of the identity of the Priest and the Victim,—a rational Victim whose constant will in suffering unto death was none other than the continued will of the Priest faithful in sacrifice to the end. Moreover in the Supper Christ offered without us, in the Mass He offers through us; hence again the manner of offering is different.In the third place, if we compare the Mass with the Supper, note with what truth Christ said Do this, namely, do what I have done; for apart from the difference of time it is absolutely the same. For the Supper looked to the immolation as future, the Mass looks to it as past. Hence it is that the Supper looked forward to the Passion, which the Mass presupposes. Therefore the sacrifice celebrated in the Supper was not completed immediately upon the consecration (and transubstantiation), but it continued on until Christ died. Our sacrifice of the Mass on the other hand, is completed immediately upon the consecration, because the immolation has already taken place. The difference between the Supper and the Mass therefore, is the difference between the offering of a victim to be immolated and the offering of a victim already immolated. This does not imply any particular excellence of the Mass as compared with the Supper, as if the Mass were in itself more complete as sacrifice than the Supper; for as we have said the Supper looks forward, the Mass presupposes. The Mass presupposes something which the Supper did not presuppose (for it had not yet taken place). The Supper looked forward to something to which the Mass does not look forward (for it has taken place). But each has its own complement in the immolation of the Passion—though differently, because of the difference in time.
Eagles' Wings' text certainly is not heretical.
It's the 91st Psalm
"Eagles' Wings' text certainly is not heretical. It's the 91st Psalm"
What version? Is this from the LXX or from the Protestant Bible? Just curious.
It's a paraphrase in some parts, but the text is the same as any English translation you read. Certainly nothing heretical has been inserted.
They're coming to take you away, uh-huh, they're coming to take you away...
The dissidents are really very scared. Good. Unfortunately, more tripe like this will continue to hit the irrelevant mainline press.
Go to confession instead of writing stupid, misinformed articles, 'K?
FYI, the Psalter is one of the parts of the OT most in error in the King James version of the OT. Even the D-R (translation of the OT into English from the Latin Vulgate), is not free from error. The only canonical Holy Scripture is the LXX and the only canonical translation into English of the LXX that I know of is that published by the Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston, MA. If your paraphrase is not from that, how do I know it's not filled with heresies? Who's to say?
Yes, that is what I have been told, I was still a Protestant pre-teen in 1965. We have a very lovely Novus Ordo Mass at our parish in Detroit, Gregorian Chant, Latin, good polyphany and even very good Catholic Church music written in the 20th and 21st centuries. : ) You are correct that bad execution of the Tridentine Mass is something most definately not to be desired.
"You are correct that bad execution of the Tridentine Mass is something most definately not to be desired."
Would not want to go back to the real deal, to the original? Why settle for just Tridentine? How pallid!
Ummnnhhh...thanks.
The part about 'completion of the Sacrifice' would seem to be quite significant.
Your are probably right, I was thinking that if a congregation wanted to continue having this sort of thing it would be better to have it at the beginning than right after the Consecration. Greeting friends and family and visitors should be after Mass and is how it is done at my parish. Seeing pictures of my parish before 1965 ( I was not yet a Catholic), demonstrates quite clearly that they were a friendly bunch despite the lack of a formalized greeting during Mass even back in the "not so friendly" 1940s and 1950s. ;~) And, in fact we still are a friendly bunch of people.
When visiting other parishes the excesses I have witnessed can at times appear comical if it wasn't such a destraction. It always seems that at least some decide it is more important to demonstrate how friendly they are by walking up and down the aisles to meet and greet, rather than greeting God in their hearts.
You are a lucky (blessed rather) soul to have a viable Novus Ordo.
"You are correct that bad execution of the Tridentine Mass is something most definately not to be desired."
Unfortunately, this still exists. Here in Baltimore, we (those of my opinion about this at least) have to suffer one of the worst Indult situations available. There are 2 priests who usually say this Mass (one is the pastor and the other is an elderly retired priest). The pastor rushes the Masses terribly. I can read Latin fluently and if I can't keep up with his pace, I know something is off. He berates the laity with subtle and not so subtle "ad hominem" attacks of "traditionalism". He scorns us about not giving money without ever once thinking to place trust in the hands of God. The people don't even sing (not even the short responses like "Amen" and "Et cum spiritu tuo") at High Mass. Terrible! The pastor could care less. I could go on and on, but you get the picture. It's very sad to see the Tridentine reduced to such a state.
Of course, all the Novus Ordo options are even worse. It's a very unfortunate diocese. Liturgical foolishness abounds in Baltimore.
The consolation in all this...we're moving to New Jersey next year and will be able to attend a real, very much alive Tridentine Mass every Sunday (and daily). In fact, this is why we are moving above all other reasons.
No, what I see is someone who is confused about the nature of Christ’s promise. When our Lord said, "the gates of hell shall not prevail" he was referring to the fact that there would be no deviance from the TRUTH. He was not assuring us that some very stupid, evil people would not infiltrate the Church; He was telling us that their evil would come to no avail. The form of the mass, the orientation of the priest, the role of the laity are important issues but they do not, in any way come to the core of the faith which is expressed in Scripture and Sacred Tradition (and yes, I agree that the former proceeds from the latter as the latter proceeds from Him who made us) as taught by His Church. The promise of "shall not prevail" was made so that we may have faith in His Church and as a result, confidence in all of His works.
None of the things you listed changed any dogma of the faith any more than the gay "marriage" preformed by an ROC priest changed Orthodox dogma.
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.