This is a letter which was written by His Eminence Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith -- former secretary of the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship (CDW):
I wish to express first of all, my gratitude to all of you for the zeal and enthusiasm with which you promote the cause of the restoration of the true liturgical traditions of the Church.
As you know, it is worship that enhances faith and its heroic realization in life. It is the means with which human beings are lifted up to the level of the transcendent and eternal: the place of a profound encounter between God and man.
Liturgy for this reason can never be what man creates. For if we worship the way we want and fix the rules ourselves, then we run the risk of recreating Aaron's golden calf. We ought to constantly insist on worship as participation in what God Himself does, else we run the risk of engaging in idolatry. Liturgical symbolism helps us to rise above what is human to what is divine. In this, it is my firm conviction that the Vetus Ordo represents to a great extent and in the most fulfilling way that mystical and transcendent call to an encounter with God in the liturgy. Hence the time has come for us to not only renew through radical changes the content of the new Liturgy, but also to encourage more and more a return of the Vetus Ordo, as a way for a true renewal of the Church, which was what the Fathers of the Church seated in the Second Vatican Council so desired.
The careful reading of the Conciliar Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilum shows that the rash changes introduced to the Liturgy later on, were never in the minds of the Fathers of the Council.
Hence the time has come for us to be courageous in working for a true reform of the reform and also a return to the true liturgy of the Church, which had developed over its bi-millenial history in a continuous flow. I wish and pray that, that would happen.
May God bless your efforts with success.
+Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith
Archbishop of Colombo
24/8/2011
My comments:
First of all, this is an opinion piece by a cardinal that some say could be pope and thus shouldn't be dismissed as off the wall.
I can't see a radical reworking of the Novus Ordo but certainly we can critique some aberrations that were not intended. I think the most unintended is the creativity and drunken inculturation that has occurred with the official liturgy of the Church. Inculturation and creativity is rightly celebrated in street processions and other devotions that are precisely that, devotions which are not universally official.
What are the two areas of the new Order of the Mass that most traditionalists don't like? They are the truncation of the prayers at the Foot of the Altar and the truncation of the Offertory Prayers. Is there a middle ground? Can we have a return to a more traditional format for the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and revisit the Offertory Prayers? Is that a big deal?
The other area apart from the Order of the Mass is the direction of Prayer. I think we have to realize that even in the EF Mass there is no law against it being celebrated toward the people and it was celebrated this way in the 1950's in some places. There is no law that says the OF Mass can't be celebrated Ad Orientem, although for a priest to do this would risk being labeled Pre-Vatican II by progressives as the single biggest reform in their minds was the Mass facing people although never explicitly mandated by the official books.
I think the vernacular is here to stay and I am personally glad for that. I also think the revised lectionary is here to stay although the traditional Gradual may make a come back as it did at the Holy Father's Midnight Mass.
Keep in mind that we have seen a "reform of the reform" with the revision of the Latin Roman Missal in 2003 and the revision of our English Missal and a totally new translation in 2010. These are huge steps in an organic development that isn't complete.
32 comments:
This is probably the first time I have heard of the old Rite (the Extraordinary Form) referred to as the "Vetus" Ordo (meaning the old or ancient order) as opposed to the Novus Ordo, which we hear often as an alternate term for the Ordinary Form.
Cardinal Ranjith obviously is strongly opinionated in favor of the EF becoming more widespread. I happen to agree with him.
A couple of years ago (before he received the red hat) he said that bishops who tried to block the implementation of Summorum Pontificum were allowing themselves to become "instruments of the Devil."
Even after this strongly worded comment, he still was made cardinal, along with another favorite of mine, Raymond Burke, now Chief Justice of the Apostolic Signatura.
I begrudginly agree the Novus Ordo is here to stay unless we get Pope Pius XIII as the next pope (although the NO will likely be subject to much needed further revisions regardless of the next pope).
However, I also think the Tridentine Mass will become more and more widespread to the point where nearly every parish offers it on a weekly basis (or at least enough parishes where everyone has access to it on a weekly basis without driving 1.5 hours each way).
This seems to be the Holy Father's wish since he has pretty much ordered priests to offer the EF Mass when it is requested... If only priests and bishops would listen and be obedient - I'm not sure the Holy Father can make the instruction any clearer than he already has and yet many people still have to drive a very long way for weekly Tridentine Mass, often to another diocese.
I regard myself as equally devoted to the EF and to the OF (even though on Sundays I attend only the EF). I especially love the textual richness of the OF, e.g., with its many additional orations and prefaces, whose beauty is at long last visible to all in the new translation.
However, it is arguable that the Church cannot put the "deformations" of recent decades until it recognizes that the Novus Ordo--in its prevalent practice at parish level--has led to a catastrophic decline in faith and morality that could not have been previously envisioned. And that this cannot be rectified merely by twiddling with the text of the OF, adding or changing this prayer or that. For (I believe) it's text in itself is an adequate expression of the historical Roman rite.
What's required is a return to proper practice and understanding of the Mass as the re-presentation (NOT representation) of the Sacrifice of the Cross. The fact that these are both implicit and explicit in the EF--taken as a whole with both its text and its ritual (the latter lacking in the OF)--is why some see a return to the EF as the only solution. My personal clairvoyance indicates that this will happen (long after I'm gone) not through an abrupt change of form, but through organic evolution of the ordinary form with the result that it winds up looking in practice like a vernacular but gloriously renewed version of the TLM (as the Council obviously intended).
I happen to like Latin because it is unique to the Latin Rite Church. God obviously doesn't give a hoot what language we pray in, but the use of the Vernacular emphasizes National differences. The use of Latin says we are Catholic above all else. I like that.
I would disagree that the Offertory and prayers at the foot of the Altar are "THE" most offensive parts of the changes between the EF and OF. I think most Trads would universally agree that Ad orientem and Communion in the Hand are THE most offensive changes between the EF and OF. Don't get me wrong, the penitent nature of the prayers of the foot of the Altar and the Offertory are VERY important, but to a Laity that is virtually as ignorant of their religion as to be pagans now, need VISUAL Catechism first, and Oratory Catechism second. I don't care how many references we find to Mass celebrated towards the people, it sends the wrong message. Even people who know you are not offering prayers to them are constantly distracted by your facing and gesturing towards them. And Communion in the hand, and standing to boot, is simply as wrong.
The resident Troll would call these preferences, but I submit they are not. They convey the Truth about who the prayers in the Mass are directed to in a visual and basic manner whose message is unclouded.
So, what next? All of this remonstration and name calling is simply divisive without direction (as a verb). I have found exactly ONE parish that does Mass Ad Orientem, and they are the local TLM, so that is moot. None that celebrate EF at all, or that advertise it. The only one I have found that has made any sort effort in that direction is a priest who did an EF in a remote region of the Diocese last June. He is now the Director of Vocations for our Diocese, so that is, IMLTHO, a sign of better things. But that was a one off event.
There is a very open hostility toward the EF, TLM, and many of the counter reforms that are taking fire elsewhere.
We have an entire Diocese that seems to be sleep walking, distracted, tolerant, maybe even indifferent, to all sorts of aberrations. Where are the adults?
rcg
I re-watched The Exorcist last night and thought that Pater Ignotus would have been perfect for the role of Father Damien...for a whole lot of reasons...
What is the source of the 1957 photo Father? I see no Mass Cards. It seems that there is a Tabernacle built onto that Altar, this forcing the Priest to face the tabernacle and the congregation, and therefore not a choice. That Tabernacle could be a veiled Chalice I suppose but the scale seems to imply it is not that. The Sanctuary of this Church seems to have been purposely wreckovated to force a change in orientation of the Mass.
Marc, I hope you are right, but there is no indication at all in the Archdiocese of Atlanta to support your contention. To the best of my knowledge, the EF is available here on only one parish, which is an FSSP church.
Templar, in addition to your short list of offensive features of the OF, I would add the EMHCs, who in my parish, seem to be no fewer than 8 (and as many as 11, only one of whom has been observed to NOT receive in the hand) at our 9:00 Sunday Mass.
I agree. Receiving standing and in the hand just seems irreverent to me, if nothing else. The EMHC thing is getting to be almost laughable. They tramp down the aisle in those ridiculous little Star Trek-looking stoles, pop up from all over the Church to go down to serve displaying varying degrees of bad dress, crowd the front of the Church, then mill around the chapels pulling the the stoles off over their heads to flop them on the altars. Then they trundle back to their seats, stepping over people to find their places. And, really do we need eight EMHC's for a half-filled Church at 5 pm?
The claim that "the Novus Ordo - in its prevalent practice at the parish level - has led to a catastrophic decline in faith and morality..." is significant, but I wonder if it is true. Is there anything beyond anecdotal evidence to support such a claim?
We do need more than anecdotal evidence to support this claim. If we had access to parallel time to see what would have happened if Vatican II had not happened (with all the other cultural things that did happen in the 1960's) that would be good. But any survey must start with people who remember the pre-Vatican II Church and what Vatican II did to the practice of their faith in the 1960's. That survey has to begin there because it is my generation who did not hand on the faith as well to their children as my parent's generation. But my parent's generation were discombobulated by the changes in the 1960's and accepted them as they accepted the authority of the Church in the 1950's--they trusted that everything told them was correct and they were obedient; but in the 1950's obedience was to orthodoxy whereas in the 1960's and 70's obedience by this generation was to heterodoxy but based upon an understanding of obedience that they would not be led astray by priests and nuns.
My generation's children are more iffy about the faith. It is not just the changes in the Mass, but a change in Catholic culture and tradition with a small t, the loss of traditional nuns and brothers in the school system that today is also declining, loss of Catholic hospitals and all the visible things that the pre-Vatican II Church emphasized perhaps to a fault, but it kept almost 80 to 90 percent of Catholics coming to Sunday Mass. Today we are lucky if 30 percent come and that would be a high figure.
Bill, it's not really a contention, just a hope that priests and bishops will get on board with the Holy Father's program. It seems to me that the proliferation of vocations to the FSSP and SSPX, as well as other traditional priestly groups and societies, spells good things for the future. Given current trends, it would seem that over time the Novus Ordo will disappear because the number of vocations to traditional groups is so overwhelmingly high in comparison to the "regular diocesan priesthood". If the SSPX is regularized, given the very high number of vocations they have, I firmly believe there will be more traditional Masses and Sacraments available, particularly if a personal prelature is established. My selfish hope is that this would even be true here in the Diocese of Savannah, where we have neither FSSP nor SSPX.
With all that said, we the laity shouldn't be having to wait for the FSSP or SSPX to show up in our diocese to "save" us. As I mentioned, the Pope has declared the traditional sacraments should be made available to us. Many priests and bishops are withholding them in various ways, from outright denial to a mere lack of catechesis, publicity, or convenience. It is sad that those who say we are disobedient for our devotion to tradition are being overtly and covertly disobedient themselves to the express decree of the Holy Father.
Marc
Fr. M, I was raised with Catholic beliefs, though I was only baptized this year. (long story, 1948 marriage between parents of differing cult)
In the 1960s, we attended Mass every week, beginning on 24 November 1963. The date is easy to remember -- the impetus was the assassination of JFK, which ended an interval of non-attendance.
In 1968, if memory serves, I was treated to my first "folk Mass", which was interesting, but in many ways appalling. I was raised with notions of reverence and silence in a house of worship, and of course, the folk Mass was anything but.
The many changes subsequent to Vatican II were greeted with scorn by my mother and grandmother, both of whom felt that the changes were an ill-conceived attempt to bring Protestants back to the fold. Whatever the real intention, there was no such concern for the sensibilities of the faithful as has been see in preparation for the recently introduced minor changes to language.
Heading to college in 1966, I was a prime candidate to be badly influenced by the worst of the attitudes of the decade, and this surely played a part in my own falling away. But equally, the very public equivocations by some of the clergy on matters like abortion, left me doubting the Church knew what it was about.
I do know that there are data to support the impression of declining membership subsequent to V2, and rising membership prior. There are also certainly data available which would show a parallel decline in morality, and a rise in secularism. But these show correlation, not causation. Still, will we really ascribe such sweeping societal changes to coincidence?
Marc, to be literal, you said "I think" the EF will become more widespread.
For me, the EF means a drive of over an hour each way, with an 83 mile round trip distance. Should the SSPX be brought back into full communion, I would have the option of an SSPX chapel which is only 3 miles further from my home than the NO parish I now attend.
Meanwhile, I am feeling ever more impelled to leave my current parish, which I have realized (while reading Hubert Jedin's History of the Council of Trent) is very, very Lutheran in its practices.
There is also an SSPX Chapel in the Diocese of Atlanta, although obviously you won't find it referenced on the Diocesan website (yet). It's in Roswell.
rcg is from the Diocese of Knoxville is that correct? I thought, from afar, that the Bishop there was Orthodox and enabling to the Latin Mass community. It is though a perception from afar.
As big a proponent of the TLM as I am, I do not believe that in my lifetime I will see the NO discarded for it. I, like Marc, believe that will happen, I just don't see it in my lifetime. The Church turns far too slowly to believe that could be the case. Heck it has taken her half my lifetime to grudgingly concede that the "reform" was done wrong, and she's still hesitant to admit that publicly, although there are signs she knows it to be so. (ask the Ex-Bishop of El Paso unceremoniously transferred to Fresno for his actions). But it will, regrettably, take more than the regularization of the SSPX to turn the corner. Marc is correct when he states the SSPX inspire vocations out of all proportion compared to the anemic rates of the Diocese, but even still, they are but 500 Priests and 1 Million adherents in an ocean of the Faith. The True Faith must be embraced at the Diocesan level to take root, and the enemy there is the Bishops (again reference ex-Bishop of El Paso). Those who desire the EF must be persistent in their requests, documenting them at the Parish, then Diocesan, and ultimately CDF levels. You won't get there by marching with burning torches (as fun as that would be) but you won't get there waiting for your Bishop to give it to you on his own volition either. Organize, join Una Voce, and methodically advance the cause. For your children's sake if not your own.
Bill - I agree that the sweeping changes we witnessed were societal and not limited to the Church.
I am inclined to think - and this is speculation - that even if there had been no change to Catholic liturgy in the 1960's and 1970's, that we would still have seen a significant decline in mass attendance due to the societal changes we all lived through.
Many secular groups that favor the Common Good over the Individual Good have had similar declines in membership. Fine organizations like the Jaycees, the Lions Club, etc., are struggling in many places to stay afloat.
The best description (explanation?) I have read of this phenomenon is found in "Habits of the Heart," by Robert Bellah, in which he tries to describe the societal changes of this era. Church members are members of the same society and influenced thereby.
I believe the "but we don't have any objective proof that the OF has damaged the faith" argument has been had and hashed out on this Blog more than once already. It's an absurdity to engage in it, since those that would advance it are obviously blind. It's like a mystery movie where the cast members are stranded on an island they keep disappearing one by one, but since no one has witnessed the murders the remainder wish to argue about whether or not the threat is real. It's called denial. How about we have this discussion the other way around and those who say that the NO has not damaged the faith offer their objective evidence that this is the case. Show us the fruits of the Novus Ordo.
The cultural shift in the 1960's was anti-institutional and anti-authority. I think many who left the Church left not so much becasue of the changes in the Mass, (and these are pre-Vatican II Catholics, keep in mind) but becasue they were rebelling against the rigid authority of society and the Church and the Church's authority was even more rigid in the 1950's and very black and white. Humanae Vitae was not accepted by most of the Catholics of the world because it was framed within a pre-Vatican II push for obedience and in 1968 that wasn't working! Today is different and the continued misunderstanding of the Mass as merely a sociological event to bring people togehter to Break Bread and feel good about each other is what is having a delitereious effect on our Catholicism. I agree with what Henry said above, we have to recover the sacrificial aspect of the Mass and make it crystal clear to the congregation that the re-presentation of the Cross in an unbloody way occurs during the Liturgy of the Eucharist, specifically during the canon. The Rite of Holy Communion is secondary to the re-presentation although certain important and the priest of course must complete the sacrifice by consuming what is sacrificed. Post Vatican II theology would include the faithful in that act of recieving Holy Communion from the Sacrifice they are attending rather than from reserved hosts from a previous "sacrifice" or previous re-presentation of the Holy Sacrifice might be a better way of saying it. The same is true of the chalice to the laity. We should not denigrate that for it must be seen as consuming what is Sacrificed and if you want the Sacrifice of the Mass to be understood properly then the laity need to understand what they are receiving when they receive Christ as Sacrifice Food and Drink.
A review of "Habits of the Heart" says: "This book is about the inevitable conflict between American Individualism and the fact that humans are by nature social. We hunger for relationship yet we want it only on our terms. Bellah and his team of reseachers take on the enormous task of interviewing people from all over the country and the results of these interviews are presented factually and then analyzed. Whether one agrees with the book's conclusions or not, the interviewees speak for themselves, and they speak for a majority of Americans today who are often torn by conflicting authoritative messages and motives from without and within. This book is a marvelous and sometimes unsettling mirror into contemporary American society."
Individualism, especially the American version, is what underlies so many of the struggles in any church or organization that emphasizes the Common Good, as the Catholic Church does so powerfully.
"Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" is popular in American thinking - very individualistic indeed. But if you bend over and grab the sides of your shoes and pull with all your might, how far will you go?
Templar,
Ou asked where the photo came from: IT comes from this website:http://www.usml.edu/liturgicalinstitute/exhibits/hillenbrand%20exhibit/sacred%20heart%20parish.html
It is an article about the pre-Vatican II Liturgical Leader Reynold Hillenbrand. Altars in this style were recommended by H.A. Reinhold, and my old home parish of St. Philomena's was originally set up this way in 1964, as was the St. Bonaventure University Chapel in 1960. Sometimes you can still find church from the 1950s and 60s with the bolt holes in the altar for the tabernacle in this position.
As for prayer cards, the priest would use the missal instead.
Templar, I would read the whole section on Hillenbrand. You will find it interesting -- like Hellreigel, he was not happy with what happened after the Council.
JIM
Regarding Fr McD's 10:22 AM post: What is certain is the catastrophic decline in Mass attendance and sacramental confession, the destruction of catechesis, the widespread introduction of open dissent, the loss of Catholic identity, and the severe impairment of the moral force of the Church. It is hard to imagine how things could have been worse than they've turned out to be. Thus, even if the NO wasn't to blame, even in part, for the catastrophe, keeping the Tridentine Mass couldn't have led to any worse results than the ones we actually got.
My guess is that keeping the Tridentine Mass would have helped to run off the people who, no matter what, were going to dissent and be heterodox, leading to a smaller, but more visibly and essentially Catholic, church. I think that that would have been a good thing. (Pope BXVI, too, has said in a different context that a smaller but more Catholic church is to be preferred over a larger heterodox one, so I'm in good company.)
Pater Ignotus said: "I am inclined to think - and this is speculation - that even if there had been no change to Catholic liturgy in the 1960's and 1970's, that we would still have seen a significant decline in mass attendance due to the societal changes we all lived through."
I agree. A number of different phenomena took place both within and without the Church in that era. Most of them had their roots in both societal phenomena--some stemming from a century of world war, I believe--and in changes in the Church at precisely the wrong time. The effects on and of different groups need to be differentiated. Including (among others):
(1) Those who left the Church, many of whom would have left the Church anyway, because of changed societal conditions.
(2) Those who rebelled against faith and liturgy, but stayed within the Church to fight it from within.
(3) Those who stayed within the Church, but whose faith and practice disintegrated.
It is this last group whom I suspect were best described by Cardinal Ratzinger when in his memoirs he said, "I am convinced that the crisis in the church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy."
This is unscientific, to be sure, but I am confident in what I write: If every Catholic parish offered one TLM as well as the Novus Ordo, people would actually have a choice.
Many Catholics have testified that they were nearly overcome with something they could not describe the first time they attended a TLM. That would also happen for a lot of people if the TLM was available to them.
If the TLM was available in every parish people would begin to vote with their feet. Young people who have been denied the full patrimony of their religion and the traditions they are entitled to would be the ones most likely to do the voting. The most vociferous voices against the TLM in every parish would be the older generation--since they are the most strident voices against Tradition already, even where it is not offered (most parishes).
If the TLM was offered just ONCE a week in most parishes, it would anger the Geritol liberals because it is a rebuke. It offers a stark contrast to the "active participation by the laity constantly moving around the sanctuary" method that we have been brainwashed with. It is a rebuke to the militant feminism that drives EMHC and the altar girl movement.
If the TLM was available in every parish, just once a week, this is what would happen. And this is why the most entrenched of the old-timers hate and despise this Mass. This is why they will stop at nothing to thwart the will of the Holy Father and the desires of faithful Catholics. They lack the humility to admit that maybe, just maybe, their revolution is a failure.
What of the Church's failure to serve as a bulwark of immovable truth during the tumultuous times in the culture? Surely that played a role in people's decline in faith and lack of attendance. I believe Bill previously posted that this was exactly the case for him. So, there is a cause and effect problem when deciding whether the Church's changes or the culture are to blame and to what degree each is responsible.
Robert Kumpel, I agree with you completely. I take your sentiment a step further and propose that not only the Tridentine Mass be offered weekly at every parish, but also Confession, Baptism, and Confirmation in the old forms. Let the young people experience the old forms of these sacraments. Bring back the old devotions that permeate Catholic life. A fully Catholic life within the mysteries expressed by the old rites (in Latin) is the cure for the "spiritual but not religious" crowd.
As a relatively young person of 28 myself, I believe other young people would be overwhelmed with the beauty of the Catholic faith as expressed in the old rites. Young people, I think, will be the ones who see the return to Catholic tradition. If you don't believe me, go to an FSSP parish and check out the age demographics.
Frajm, It would be, IMO, serious mistake to seek some single link to the change in the Mass to decline in support of the Church. first of all we are talking about a large societal event of the kind that yield several results. More effective metrics would, again IMO, be the decline in vocations and individual giving.
rcg
Oh, I believe you, Marc. No need to convince me. When I lived in San Diego, the TLM was offered weekly at Holy Cross mausoleum. The chapel area was so full that people spilled into the other wings of the mausoleum, yet it took years to convince our bishop to permit a second Mass (under the 1988 indult). What really got me though, was the fact that the majority of people in attendance were YOUNG. Young families with lots of kids (SOME people obeyed Humanae Vitae) and young, single adults. It was actually a great place for young, orthodox Catholics to find a place to meet other like-minded people. What was offered there certainly transcended the emptiness of your average parish "young adult group".
There were also some faithful old-timers there as well, including the priests who came just to hear confessions--one of whom was a teacher of mine from my high school days.
Gratefully, that group has finally been given a parish, staffed by--you guessed it: FSSP priests. It is located in one of San Diego's poorest ghettos, yet people still drive from miles around.
What scares me is this mentality I see now in larger cities where the bishop seems to think (and sometimes say), "OK, you've got your Latin Mass parish over there, we don't need this in our REGULAR parishes (as if there is something irregular about our most ancient form of worship) so stop agitating for it."
I guess if we want what the Holy Father, Cardinals Ranjith and Burke and all the Church documents say we should have, then WE are the bad guys.
Robert,
I couldn't agree with you more on the point that the Extraordinary Form absolutely must become a part and parcel of regular Diocesan parish schedules. This is part of the whole point of this exercise--to influence and affect both the laity and the priests in how they view the Mass. It can change our liturgical culture and "customs", which is exactly what we need as the "silly season" (which may have its roots in 60's cultural upheaval) fades into history.
It is a reference point for lay people in terms of proper reverence and in its external emphasis on the Sacrificial Nature of the Mass. As to priests (who usually celebrate the Ordinary Form), it can have an effect on how they see themselves in their unique position as priests and on their manner of celebration (ars celebrandi). Good habits can be carried over into the OF.
I don't like to be seen as a troublemaker or one who puts priests on the spot, but, at some point, it becomes imperative for the laity to make known their interest in the EF and follow the process laid out by the Holy Father to get the EF in as many parishes as possible.
Priests need to be open to this possibility and either be willing to learn the EF or, at least, not discourage it and accomodate groups who want it and assist them in finding a visiting priest who can offer them an occasional but regular TLM. Priests who don't celebrate the EF should not be offended when laity ask for it and are willing to find a priest who can come into the parish for an occasional but regular EF Mass. It should not be a "sensitive subject" which "nice Catholics" don't "burden" a priest with by discussing it in his presence.
Robert,
Another thought: Why wouldn't it be a good idea for our Diocese to invite a couple of FSSP priests in to "float" around the Diocese and offer the TLM in places where it is not available and to offer training to Diocesan priests in the TLM?
This would give relief to priests who have parishioners who want the TLM and would not burden them in any way--it might even help attendance and collections!
Father, what do you think?
Ignotus,Robert Bellah is a card carrying member of the American Communist Party, and a modernist who basically believes that religion is nothing more than a capitalist social phenomenon that does more harm than good. He believes in a "world civil religion," which is basically Communism, and quotes all the great atheists, like Durkheim, Weber, and Marx. But, of course, you knew all this...You may want to read what the Catechism says about Communism and Socialism...
The question Pin is whether Ignotus actually believes the things he posts, when he holds up Marxist writers for example, or if he is simply agitating for it's own sake, "because it's fun" as he has said.
Either way I find such behavior in a Pastor of a Catholic Church despicable.
Templar, I expect Ignotus cannot be completely honest about his true beliefs because the Bishop may be reading the blog. At any rate, his posts and his comments have been pretty consistent. If it quacks like a duck...etc.
Post a Comment