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.
No priest ever told me about the filioque clause. I learned about it in college in a history of religions class. Maybe I didn't remember it correctly and it was that the Orthodox didn't take out the clause - they just didn't want it put in. But it was that and the Bishop of Constantinople didn't like the power the Bishop of Rome had. My understanding is that they both ex-communicated each other.
You are really getting rude and defensive and I don't think I'm going to reply to you any more. I've tried to be polite, but you are very angry about something and I refuse to be the brunt of it. When you feel like speaking nicely, maybe I will reply.
You're missing the point, "The Protestant interpretation of those verses is that Jesus........"
The ONLY Protestant interpretation to ANY Bible passage, all the way from "In the beginning " to "with you all. Amen." is "I believe (or think)". Or "In MY opinion..." Or "I interpret it..." "MY view is..."
Now do you see what I was driving at?
As one of the Russian fathers put it(and I'm terribly sorry I don't have his name for you), the Holy Scriptures are like the blinding Sun that gives us light. If we look at the Sun directly, we will burn our eyes and do them permanent injury, even blind ourselves. To protect our eyes from the Sun's burning rays, we have to look at it through a very thick dark glass. The Holy Scriptures are the same. If you attempt to interpret them for yourself, you will harm yourself spiritually and maybe even physically as well. You have to look at them through the eyes of the fathers of the Church, not through some Magisterium but through the consistent teaching of the fathers.
Are familiar with the Vincentian Canon? As you say you are an Anglican or former Anglican, I would think you should be. If you are, I urge you to refamiliarize yourself with it, particularly as to the filioque heresy. If you are not familiar with it, click on http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf211.iii.html
...he (Justin Martyr),was writing to demonstrate the harmlessness of Christianity, especially the mysterious Christian meetings, which were illegal, about which pagans believed horrible things. In reading his description we must remember that he writes for this purpose, not to supply future archaeologists with a complete picture of liturgical practices. Nevertheless his defence takes the form of an outline of the service which to the liturgist is the most precious document of the first three centuries.
There have been many liturgical practices instituted and then done away with for various reasons over the millenia. Perhaps the Kiss of Peace began to descend into the goofiness us ole curmudgeons complain about and so, was modified at the Council of Trent.
At the very least I think its position needs to be re-thought seriously and I am certainly not the only Catholic who thinks this way. Why, a quick search on the Internet landed me this little gem from America Magazine, (hardly a conservative rag), by Fr. Thomas Reese S.J.:
Likewise, the kiss of peace could be given either during the entrance rite (hello and welcome), after the penitential rite (a sign of reconciliation), prior to the preparation of gifts (first be reconciled to your brother [and sister], and then come and offer your gift) or at the end of the Eucharist (go in peace).
Of all the places to have the kiss of peace, its current position has by far the least symbolic value. In fact, its early opponents were correct in pointing out that it interfered with the flow of action from the Eucharistic prayer into the Communion. Historically, there was a time when the Our Father was used to conclude the prayer of the faithful, and the kiss of peace then followed. There is no reason why these options could not be permitted, and gradually pastors would learn which are most suitable for their communities at different times.
Over time the Roman Mass took shape and became a beautiful offering to God. Seeing what it has become, (and I am speaking of the Novus Ordo since 1978), in so many places is, to say the least, dis-heartening. The loss of the sacred and the enshrinement of mediocrity are the consequences of inventing how we think the early Christians practiced their faith. Perhaps some of these liturgists at Vatican II "felt" it was appropriate to place a Kiss of Peace right after the Consecration. Who are we to argue when feelings become the guide? Maybe we should go back to worshiping in our homes; or dig catacombs, (I shouldn't laugh it may come to this), or; as this one liturgist nun of my acquaintance has suggested, use the bodies of the sick as our Altars!
Last time this was said in those words was in the 9th century by semi-iconoclast Frankish stormtroopers.
The Creed was established and finalized by Ecumenical Councils and could not be changed by someone's opinion. Some Eastern Fathers (i.e. St. John Chrystostom) seem to have thought it was correct, but they didn't change the Creed in their Liturgies. The Roman Catholic Church recognizes the Councils that infallibly decreed the Symbol of Faith without the Filioque. That didn't stop the Latins from blatantly violating them by adding it to ther Creed. That alone makes the RCC non-Chalcedonian, or -- shall we say? -- beyond schismatic.
Yet, curiously, while the rest of Catholics say the Filioque, the Vatican does not profess it even to this day but sings the Creed in the original Greek, without the Filioque. The silver plates on the Vatican walls are without it too. The Roman Bishops refused to add it for 600 years.
As you are well aware, there are many Eastern rite churches in the Roman flock
Most Eastern-rite churches in communion with Rome are going back to their Orthodox roots, undergoing active de-latinization and returning to the original Creed without the Filioque.
The situation is far superior to what it was when I was raised in the rules and regulations, (relationship with Jesus?) fortress-Catholicism.
Justin Martyr's descriptions, whether they were "videotape accurate" or not, are irrelevant. The Roman liturgy was NOT what JM described only 100 years later, and certainly not what was canonized after Trent.
Finding antique practices is nice. Precisely how this contributes to "devlopment of the liturgy" is another question entirely, as Pius XII and Ratzinger have made extremely clear.
Because we accept the possibility of GOOD being developed.
It doesn't always work that way--as is clear.
Remember that a good deal of the Orthodox liturgy is also "developed" from the Apostolic practice.
Ummmnnnhh...I've heard a few Credo III's sung from the Vatican, (St Peter's) all of which incorporate Filioque.
"Remember that a good deal of the Orthodox liturgy is also 'developed' from the Apostolic practice."
I go by what the Council in Trullo said in Canon XXXII.
* I have already told you I am done responding to you. One reason I am done responding is typified by this post. My post to another gentleman had nothing to do with an insult to orthodoxy and it was not directed at you. It had to do with the gentleman's refusal to shake hands during the Catholic Liturgy. It was not directed at you. It had nothing to do with you or Orthodoxy.
In FACT, the gentleman I quoted, Jeroslav Pelikan IS ORTHODOX. A CONVERT TO ORTHODOXY FROM LUTHERANISM. SO HOW COULD HIS QUOTE BE TAKEN BY YOU TO BE AN INSULT TO ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY IS BEYOND ME AND, FURTHERMORE, SO FAR BEYOND ME I DON'T CARE TO HEAR THE EXPLANATION WHY YOU CONSIDER IT DOES APPLY TO YOU OR ORTHODOXY.
And from here on out, I will have nothing to do with you.
Please stop pinging me.
"My post to another gentleman...Please stop pinging me"
Now that I think about it, you're probably right. I took the Pelikan remark the wrong way, probably because he is well known as being a leader in the "development" school of thught that the West is presently enslaved by.
Are you the character who asked me not to send you any PMs? That really mystified me because, to tell you the truth, I cannot recall having sent you any in the first place.
Just my personal opinion, but I think you seem to have some issues to deal with, as I see from some of your posts. Are you a "still feeling very much wounded" Sen. John Kerry supporter maybe? Or are you afraid of the new Pope of Rome, fearful he might tell you to start fasting again on Fridays?
Ninenot,
FYI, an extract from
The Canons of the Council in Trullo; Often Called the Quinisext Council
Canon XXXII
For also James, the brother, according to the flesh, of Christ our God, to whom the throne of the church of Jerusalem first was entrusted, and Basil, the Archbishop of the Church of Caesarea, whose glory has spread through all the world, when they delivered to us directions for the mystical sacrifice in writing, declared that the holy chalice is consecrated in the Divine Liturgy...Therefore if any bishop or presbyter shall not perform the holy action according to what has been handed down by the Apostles... let him be deposed, as imperfectly shewing forth the mystery and innovating on the things which have been handed down.
Now, some(but only some), of what was handed down is contained in Canon XXXII itself. The remainder is found in the Divine Liturgy According to St. James the Brother of the Lord. And as to the Presanctified Liturgy implicitly referred to by Canon XXXII, that is referred to more explicitly by another of the canons of the Council in Trullo and was handed down to us by St. Gregory the Dialogist Patriarch of the West and Pope of Rome.
So what's to develop? Nothing. All we need do is 2Th 2:15 "...stand fast, and hold the traditions which [we] have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
Would you then, in the interest of being liberal and progressive, help the enemy sappers? Thank you but the Church IS in FACT a fortress. And I don't want to alarm you but it is eternally besieged by the legions of hell. If you find the idea that evil exists, and IS TRYING TO DESTROY the Church, too rigid, perhaps you should pick a religion less dichotomous in it's morality. I don't think you appreciate the dangers of a “Changing Liturgy.” At who's will is it Changing? God's or man's? (keeping in mind that God is eternal and therefor immutable).
As to the legions of hell trying to destroy our fortress, they are already inside, and have been since Judas.
"...pagans, heathens, kooks, weirdoes, Jews, muslims etc....are your brothers and sisters."
Excuse me, but when these come into the Church, they are not to bring their heresies along with them but to repent of them on the way in.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Col 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond [nor] free: but Christ [is] all, and in all.
What a doofus! Pope Benedict sure has them running scared, doesn't he? I'm lovin it!
Another good analogy... an Ark is a ship, a ship must have rules and regulations. It must be governed rigidly or it will wreck.
Now you did not answer my question about the origin of modern tasteless liturgical vicissitude.
No need to worry. The Ark of Salvation can't sink. As to rigid or lax rule, I leave that to those with authority. I can only control myself
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.