Posted on 07/14/2014 11:38:21 AM PDT by BlatherNaut
Fr. Dwight Longenecker, posting on his“Standing on my Head” blog (appropriately named given the frequency with which pontifications seem to flow so freely from his other end), recently suggested that traditionalists (aka Catholics) are “getting old.” Obviously, he’s never been to a “traditionalist” gathering to witness the overwhelming presence of young, often quite large, families.
“Not only are they dying out,” he wrote, “but their ideas are dying out.”
It isn’t immediately clear what “ideas” he has in mind, but presumably he is speaking of such notions as the Social Kingship of Christ as taught with such stunning clarity by Pope Pius XI in Quas Primas, the reality of Christian unity as taught by this same Roman Pontiff in Mortalium Animos, and last but not least, the Mass of all Ages, the devotees of which he has castigated as unstable for daring to drive considerable distances to assist at such a liturgy.
Fr. Longenecker went on to opine:
Fifty years after the revolution of the Second Vatican Council we are moving on from the tensions it created. Those tensions existed because Catholics kept comparing the pre-Vatican II church to the post-Vatican II church. The ones who did this most were the folks who went through the Vatican II revolution … Everything was viewed through that lens. Well, at least we agree on one thing; the Second Vatican Council was a revolution.
Where I and every other reasonably well-formed Catholic parts company with Fr. Longenecker is his preposterous assertion that those who cannot help but draw comparisons between Catholic life before Vatican II and the bitter realities of the present crisis are necessarily “the folks who went through the Vatican II revolution,” and they are the reason tensions exist over the Council.
Does Fr. Longenecker believe that to be Catholic, no matter one’s age or personal experience, is to view everything through the lens of all that preceded us?
Does he hold the firm conviction that ours is the Faith that comes to us from the Apostles; not just the faith of the most recent “pastoral exercise” or the currently reigning pope?
Does he fully embrace the reality that this faith is immutable; may never be believed to be different, and may never be understood in any other way?
Apparently not, which actually makes perfect sense if you stop to consider his background:
Brought up as an Evangelical. Dwight Longenecker graduated from fundamentalist Bob Jones University. While there he became an Anglican and after graduation went to Oxford to train as an Anglican priest. After serving for ten years as an Anglican priest he converted to the Catholic faith with his wife and family. Eventually he returned to the United States to be ordained as a Catholic priest under the special provision from Rome for married former Anglican clergy. (Amazon.com bio) Is it just me or does there seem to be something missing from this curriculum vitae; namely, any kind of training in Catholic theology and protestant deprogramming?
In any case, I suspect, and Fr. Longenecker himself may very well admit, there isn’t a snowball’s chance in Hell he would have swum the Tiber if awaiting him on the other shore was the “pre-Vatican II church” circa all the way back to 1958.
This raises yet another question: Did Fr. Longenecker convert to the Catholic faith whole and entire, or did he convert to some protestantized (read: distorted) conception of the same?
Clearly, it is the latter. Remember what he said:
Fifty years after the revolution of the Second Vatican Council we are moving on from the tensions it created. You see, only the protestant mind can conceive of a “revolution” in the Church in such terms; as if the revolution isn’t a problem in and of itself, but only the tensions created by the recalcitrant few who just can’t seem to let go.
Indeed, it may well be that the vast majority of converts over the last fifty years, priest or otherwise, more properly converted to a protestantized conception of “Church” and not necessarily to the Faith in its fullness.
It’s not necessarily their fault.
Think about it: One who embraces with gusto every word that has come forth from the mouths of the last five popes would have at least one foot in Protestantism. Obviously, Fr. Longenecker does, and this even as he stands on his head.
The Dwight Longenecker of the internet is not the same guy as the priest I know... I mean he is the same guy but it sounds like two different people. Should I be graced to attain eternal life, Fr. Longenecker will be partly responsible. I'm a rad trad and he knows it, yet he didn't let that stop him from exercising his priestly duties in the confessional in a manner that I can only call miraculous.
He was also trained to say Mass by the pastor of this parish so it wasn't as if he was dropped directly from Anglicanism into Catholicism without any preparation.
That's the sense I get from this quote from Fr. Longncker:
"The old folks would like to brand the young Catholics as “conservatives” or “traditionalists” or even “arch conservatives”. Some of them are, but most of them are not. They are young. They’re smart and they simply want to be Catholic."
The fact that they are considered "arch conservatives" by the grey ponytails of Vatican II, and that they see themselves as "just Catholics," means that the whole thing is undergoing a generational shift, and the more-traditional are becoming the "new normal."
That's good news, if Longnecker is(I hope) accurately discerning the signs of the times, and if Verreccio could wipe off his glasses and see it.
True that. I am one of them. By the grace of God I am now learning the true Catholic Faith whole and entire.
But the "more traditional" are not really traditional. They just "prefer" the Latin Mass. If they were more traditional they too would take issue with Vatican II. So the fact that the so-called "more traditional" is becoming the new normal isn't a good thing. The "new normal" still haven't been converted to the Catholic Faith. They are still VII protestantized.
Fr. Longenecker: "They’re not buying into the whole liberal agenda, but most of them also don’t care that much for the traditionalist agenda".
How can they be "in fact traditionalists", yet not "care that much for the traditionalist agenda"?
Longenecker seems to be alluding to an evolved version of post-Vat II Catholicism within which traditional Catholicism and post- Vat II novelties have coalesced into a new creation, the "cafeteria traditionalist". This must be a rare breed, as I have yet to encounter any.
IMO Louie Verrecchio's assessment is accurate.
"And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
means that the whole thing is undergoing a generational shift, and the more-traditional are becoming the “new normal.”
...and we are seeing that ‘new normal’ being practiced exactly where, in this land of suburbanized Catholic worship...?
...have you taken a good look at the summer attire of the ‘faithful’ lately, as they file in through the doors of the public library, I mean, the Catholic Church, and have you noticed the slouching behavior as they are ushered like cattle to approach the Spotless Host...?
...it wouldn’t be so bad if this sort of church were an seldom encountered aberration, but I think we all know, that with the closings of older, ethnically centered churches, that the bishops all over the country want exactly the type of worship exhibited in your typical suburban church, want to keep the laity fat, dumb, and happy (and thus not reconsidering their annual diocesan donations, and not being a sourpuss sitting in the pews, worrying about the quality of worship...)
...in short, exactly what is ‘more traditional’ about the preferred model of diocesan worship today...or, more to wit, is this what Fr. Longenecker considers traditional...?
“...Fr. Dwight Longenecker, posting on his“Standing on my Head” blog (appropriately named given the frequency with which pontifications seem to flow so freely from his other end)...”
I lost interest in this garbage right about here.
But the “more traditional” are not really traditional. They just “prefer” the Latin Mass.
...if by the ‘Latin Mass’ you refer to the Pian Mass codified subsequent to the Council of Trent, well, reverence and love of that Mass makes you as traditional as you can get...of course, the Pauline Mass of 1969 was promulgated in Latin, and can be, and has been, celebrated thusly, and therefore,properly termed the ‘Latin Mass’...
...at any rate, nobody I’ve encountered at our local TLM has any love for VatII; that they may refrain from badmouthing those who do attend the Novus Ordo does not speak to any lack of reverence for the tradition and Deposit of Faith...and as for contending with VatII, exactly what is it you expect a traditionally minded Catholic, who is just seeking a more reverent, meaningful worship experience, to actually do...
“...Fr. Dwight Longenecker, posting on his“Standing on my Head” blog (appropriately named given the frequency with which pontifications seem to flow so freely from his other end)...”
...I don’t know...seems like a pretty good line to me...
to go beyond the “ambiguity” talk; to go beyond the liturgical abuses talk.
Vatican II made changes in the areas of religious liberty and ecumenism. Traditional Catholics recognize the problem with VII goes well beyond ambiguity and abuses. Traditional Catholics recognize the modernism at work within the Council and the modernism that continues to infiltrate the Church.
Oh and I forgot the “Spirit of the Council” talk.
Blech.
Does Louie Verecchio speak with Michael Voris anymore? I know they disagree about whether the Pope should be criticized.
That view -- that people who merely "prefer" the Latin Mass but do not "take issue with" (I presume you mean "reject") Vatican II, are not really Catholics --- places you on one side and the entire body of Catholic Christendom --- the entire hierarchy and a billion+ faithful, including many canonized saints, for the past 50 years, on the other. It logically entails that there is no real Apostolic succession.
That places you outside of Catholicism.
Whether or not you call yourself a sedevacantist,, that's sede in practice, analogous to the Polish or Dutch "Old Catholic" splinters.
The vulgar disrespect for a priest expressed in that phrase applied to Fr. Longnecker is disgraceful. It’s he kind of scatology you’d expect from the writings of Martin Luther.<p
I do not willingly continue communication with people like that.
He’s probably looking at the new crop of priests who are -— I’m told -— excellent. Certainly the ones in my neck o’ the woods (Diocese of Knoxville) are.
That’s right Mrs Don-o the Modernists have infiltrated the Church. I’m not willing to sit by and accept them as Catholic. If that puts me outside the post Vatican II church , so be it.
But all’s good you see because your New Church doesn’t require anyone to be a member of their church!
**True that. I am one of them.***
One of what?
Seriously? Re-read what I quoted. I’m pretty sure you can figure out what I meant.
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.