Wednesday, June 6, 2012

PART II: "SHOULD I SHARE THE ANTIPATHY SO MANY HAVE FOR THE ORDINARY FORM OF THE ANCIENT MASS?"




On the previous post, "SHOULD I SHARE THE ANTIPATHY SO MANY HAVE FOR THE ORDINARY FORM OF THE ANCIENT MASS?", I received the following very cogent and legitimate comment. Please read it and my response below it:

Anonymous said...June 5, 2012 5:01 PM

This debate is frustrating to read because it presumes the laity to be a lazy, addled, ignorant bunch of quasi-Catholics. Those of us who go to mass every week go because we are called to, and that time at church is sacred to us, and we work hard to teach our children respect for the host (and yes, they are "naughty" sometimes and don't "do it right" sometimes, and we have to deal with that among many things they do "wrong" on a regular basis), and we are in awe at the miracle that happens before us when the priest consecrates the bread and wine. The above debate belittles our "ordinary" mass experience and the prayer and worship we throw ourselves into. Perhaps you can find a way to criticize the church without patronizing the church militant who are in our pews doing our best to do what we are told.


Blogger Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...June 6, 2012 5:19 AM

Granted there are some who comment on this blog who would prefer only the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. I feel for them that we don't have enough priests to allow this form weekly. It could have happened here if there were at least 150 to 200 people desiring this Mass weekly. As it stands at our 2:00 PM monthly Mass we have about 40 parishioners--that does not justify turning one of the 4 Sundays Mass we have in the Ordinary Form into an Extraordinary Form Mass. Now we do have another parish in the city that only has one Sunday morning Mass and certainly another Mass in the EF could be held there weekly, but that is out of my hands.

I do not share the antipathy that some here have toward the Ordinary Form Mass. However, that doesn't mean that the Ordinary Form Mass doesn't need to be protected and improved. There are many ways to do this and Pope Benedict is modeling the primary two ways, directing prayer of the priest and congregation toward God, not toward one another and kneeling for Holy Communion. These are minor revisions and about a 1500 year precedence in the Liturgy of the Latin Rite.

Also I do not share the antipathy of those who love the Ordinary Form and have an antipathy towards the Extraordinary Form Mass, but I do recognize that this Mass needed and needs revision, minor revision, such as more flexibility and more vernacular.

I firmly believe too, that Pope Ratzinger believes that both the 1962 missal and now the current missal fall short of what both could be and thus having both missals available will point out the strengths and weaknesses of both and allow for a more organic renewal of the Mass with the advent of yet another missal in the future to be the Ordinary Mass of the Latin Rite. In other words I believe the 1962 missal will always be the Extraordinary Form of the Mass but the 1970 missal and its 2012 revision are temporary and that it (the Ordinary Form Missal) will be replaced by something new that will be a combination of the 1970 and 1962 missal and probably and more of a 1962 feel and look and spirituality.

As for the first line of the the comment above: "This debate is frustrating to read because it presumes the laity to be a lazy, addled, ignorant bunch of quasi-Catholics," the same could be said of a certain percentage of the clergy. Never before though, have the laity be able to write their comments or create their own blogs on Church issues for others to read and make comment. I think most priests do want to know what the laity are thinking. This does two things, it helps us to hear their thoughts and if within the context of our faith and tradition to confirm them. If, though the thoughts expressed fall outside of our faith and tradition and even outside our academic understanding of such, then it allows the priest and now other laity to critique what is said and hopefully move the conversation forward. But another thing also happens, laity have corrected me on this blog and that's something new too! I think it is a two way street!

Finally, I would hope our discussions on this blog that go beyond liturgy, although the liturgy is the source and summit of our Catholic lives, will help us all to grow in our faith and understanding of our faith and the morals of the Church, especially those morals which today are hotly contested by both Catholics within the Church, Catholics who have left the Church and the non-Catholic community, especially those who have joined the new, modern religion of the USA, Godless Secularism.





46 comments:

Gene W. (formerly Pin) said...

I enjoy the Blog posts, discussions, and the mutual support of (mostly) like-minded Catholics. But, blogs are by nature democratic and populist. This means that their very existence within a Catholic framework is an indication of everything that is wrong in the post-Vat II Church. In a strong Church, with strong leadership and a solid Magisterium, we should not even be discussing this stuff. To the degree that the "blogosphere" actually has an effect upon decisions made at any level of the Church hierarchy is an even more disturbing symptom. I believe the entire cultural milieu of secular, egalitarian rationalism is reflected in blogs like this (as much as I enjoy it), which means that this levelling, democratic mindset has permeated the Church to a degree that is not completely reversible. Yes, this is bad.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I would agree to the extent that blogs even like my most humble blog foments dissent from even the ordinary magisterium of the Church and our Holy Father and the individual bishops in union with him even in juridical issues. Dissent from the bishops on the right or left is a product of the "spirit" of Vatican 2 not of Vatican 2!

Gene W. (formerly Pin) said...

If "we shall know them by their fruits," and the "spirit of Vat II" is a fruit thereof, then what does that say?

Andy Milam said...

Father,

I'd like to make a couple of comments. I really think that your point about 150-200 people is short sighted. You're not fulfilling the concept of what the Holy Father intended by saying that because there aren't 150-200 people we can't have the TLM. No. The Holy Father wants the TLM in every parish. That much is clear. It shouldn't matter that a Novus Ordo Mass is replaced. To the contrary, I think that is exactly what the Holy Father intended in his writing on the subject. The restoration of the TLM isn't contingent upon the "consensus fidelium." The restoration of the TLM is based upon the desire of the Holy Father to restore the TLM.

It is my contention that if the TLM is made available at a more "normal" time, 2:00pm is not "normal" for Mass on Sunday, then it would get a greater foothold. I know that I'm just one person and that ultimately my personal view doesn't amount to a whole lot, but there are many people like me who are thinking the very same thing, but are not willing to say something about it. So, what is there to lose by replacing the 7:00am Sunday Mass with a TLM low Mass? Or since there is this idea that the TLM has to be a High Mass, which is not absolutely necessary, why can't there be a Sung Mass at 9:00am? Here's the shocker...the real reason is that the pastors are afraid of losing revenue. Right now, more people go to the Novus Ordo and pastors are afraid that they won't go to the TLM and therefore they will lose money. Well, here's the rub of that...do the pastors have so little faith in the people that go to the 7 or the 9 that they will just stop going to Mass altogether? Assuming they don't just remain and accept the TLM (which I think they would, btw with proper catechesis), I would think that they'd go to another Mass and THAT Mass's collection would go up. But, in the meantime, the parish would be gaining the dollars from those who assist at the TLM who don't normally go to Mass at your parish.

Bottom line, this whole 150-200 people issue isn't anything other than the abject fear of losing money. And that is not the point. It never has been.

As for the argument regarding revision of the TLM, why? Why is it so hard to catechize the faithful on the spirituality of the TLM? Why is there this overriding need to insert the vernacular? The words of the Mass are irrelevant to the faithful. They are there to worship. Their worship should be internal first and foremost. This idea of participatio actuosa being a blend of external and internal participation is an erroneous view of the concept. Participatio activa speaks more to the blending of the two. Participatio actuosa speaks firt and predominantly internally participating by uniting one's soul to the liturgical action. So, what the priest says is irrelevant. So, it should be in Latin for a great many number of reasons which I will not take the time to list, but are easy enough to find. This idea of the vernacular is horizontal theology at best and Protestant theology at worst. In any event, it is not Catholic (Latin Rite).

I tend to disagree with the idea that most priests want to know what the laity are thinking. The majority of priests that I know (and I know a lot) are not interested at all, because it means more work for them. My experience in trying to engage priests in a theological discussion usually leads to frustration on both parts, because the priest won't catechize mainly because he wasn't taught how to in seminary. So, he just dismisses what the faithful has to say and simply goes about his own business....too bad, because there are a great many of us (I do include myself) who study and are genuine about our love for the Church (from all time, not just 1962 onward).

(continued)

Andy Milam said...

(continued from previous)

I won't comment on taking the blog past the liturgy other than this. It's your blog. You can write about whatever you want. So, you call the shots. If you want it to be more than just a liturgical blog, write about some theological issues. However, I think that today, the most pressing issue is the liturgical action, because it is how 99.9% of Catholics view themselves, exclusively and they should.

Ultimately it comes to this, priests need to embrace the TLM. Priests need to start listening to the Holy Father and they need to embrace the TLM. The reason they don't is money. These men are some of the smartest men in the world and they can't learn a new language? I call BS. They're learning Spanish. The languages are similar. This has everything to do with antipathy toward the TLM and traditional Catholic thought. Oh, sure, it's nice to say that one is traditional, but that is sort of "bad boy en vogue" right now, but ultimately when these priests are pushed, they won't change their tune. It remains the same..."We don't have enough people to attend (not assist)." Although the TLM is the fastest growing segment of the Church.

"We can't learn Latin, it's too hard." How's that Spanish coming, Father?

"I've tried this fight in the past and I lost." This isn't the past. The rules of the game have changed, 5 YEARS AGO!

"My bishop doesn't allow it." It isn't up to the bishop any longer.

This isn't an issue of anything other than abject denial of the immemorial aspects of the Church. 99% of priests today will only go back as far as 1965 with regard to the Mass. Sure, they'll quote older stuff, when it is in their best interest to do so, but by and large...

By and large we need to stand up and tell our priests what we want. Fr. McDonald, you say that you want to hear what we have to say...there is the start of a discussion, if you want it.

Fin.

Anonymous said...

Gene (8:34 a.m.), doesn’t it suggest that texts, to the extent they are ambiguous or otherwise vague, or perhaps just not properly understood, are susceptible to interpretations that may need to be corrected by the relevant community of interpreters over time? Should we reject the U.S. Constitution because some interpret it in a way we think erroneous or rather should we urge a better understanding, interpretation, and application of that document?

But perhaps I have misunderstood the thrust of your comment (it is a text after all) or perhaps Vatican II is materially distinguishable from the Constitution in the present context.

In any event, I agree that Blogs frequently bring out the worst in us.

Pater Ignotus said...

Discussions of issues within the Church, which have included some pretty heated and even bloody arguments, have always taken place. Whether the Church and its leadership is "strong" has nothing to do with whether these dicussions occur or not.

There has never - NEVER - been a time when reasonable and faithful people agreed to the point that discussions did not take place.

The desire for such a utopian existence is yet another traditionalist fantasy.

ytc said...

I think some theological posts are fine and good, but they won't generate much discussion. Dogmatic and doctrinal things are settled points that don't generate any discussion. They are set in stone, and you either accept them or you don't.

I agree with Andy above when he says that the liturgy is how 99% of [in the know] Catholics identify themselves. This is the bigger pressing issue of now. So while you can post about whatever you want, if you start doing theological posts exclusively or something, not much discussion will be generated methinks. Theological points don't need our input and commenting-collaboration. Liturgy, on the other hand, does. So please don't change the content of the blog too much!

And I must ask, why does there need to be vernacular in the EF? The vast majority of its attendees don't think so. In fact I think Latin is one of the most attractive things about the EF.

And I also must agree with Gene. When we laypeople have to start arguing about liturgy, you know the hierarchy has screwed up somewhere.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Vernacular in the EF would bring it broader appeal and that magic number of 150 might happen actually.

ytc said...

But that would essentially be an untraditional bastardization of the liturgy.

:/

Marc said...

Andy Milam:

I wish I could meet you in person so I could buy you a drink, shake your hand, and then give you a standing ovation! Just a fantastic post there. Bravo, sir!

Here's the other thing: discussing the litury is discussing theology. The liturgy should be the expression of the theology - the incarnation of the doctrine of the Church, if you will. The liturgy is the sacrament that shows forth the underlying dogma.

When the liturgy is incorrect, as the Novus Ordo is, it shows forth an incorrect version of the dogma. This is part of the reason why there are now big misunderstandings on ecumenism, religious freedom, ecclesiology, and collegiality.

Demasi said...

I want the Latin Mass, whom wants ?

Anonymous said...

Vernacular in the EF might have broader appeal, but then it is no longer the EF and it is a liturgical abuse that no priest has the authority to introduce into the Mass. It is objectively grave matter for a priest to deliberately introduce abuse into the EF.

Andy Milam said...

Father,

I guess I'll press you on this issue. Where can I find sourcing on this 150-200 magic number? It sure seems as though this arbitrary number is being placed on something which is a scapegoat for those priests who don't want to celebrate the TLM.

I just don't get it. To subscribe to something like that is to go against the very purpose of SP and UE.

@ Marc,

There is more to discussing theology than talking about liturgical theology though. I wrote my undergrad thesis on the relationship between the Cappadocian Fathers and the early Church. A subject I still find to be utterly fascinating.

I don't know if I would go so far as to say the Novus Ordo is "incorrect." I will say that it is deficient. The Novus Ordo is valid, but illicit. The problem with the Novus Ordo is that the mind of the Fathers was never realized. The NO was hijacked and re-imagined by Bugnini and his cohorts to the point where what the Council Fathers envisioned and what came to be are two different things. It is for this reason that I advocate dumping the Novus Ordo. There is no way to make it licit, and if it cannot be licit, the spiritual growth is nil. The ultimate undoing of the Novus Ordo was when the rubrics were changed from law to suggestion. The liturgy lost it's authority at that instant. And without that, there can be nothing theologically significant to bind the action to the Sacrament. With the TLM, we know, FOR CERTAIN, that the Mass is both valid and licit, if the rubrics are followed. Because it is unlawful to change the rubrics of the TLM.

We are on the same page though, because I've been banging on the same four issues that you've listed.

Templar said...

Welcome Andy Milam to the Southern Orders Blog Don Quixote Club. You join a growing list of readers who have pointed out the arbitrary nature of the magic 150.

For my part I attend St Joseph becasue it is hands down, the ONLY Orthodox parish within an hours drive of my home. A home I hold a mortgage on, and a home close to my place of employment that allows me to pay that mortgage, and support my wife and 4 children. Is it all "I" would want in a Parish, well no, but I do appreciate all that Pastor McDonald tries to do, and his spirited defense of the Faith. I could do MUCH worse. At some time in the future, when my place of residence is not driven by employment, it will be driven by access to a Parish which is all that I could wish it to be, becasue that will be the criteria I use to determine where I live. Until then I am at least enjoying watching Father McDonald walk the road many of us have already traveled, albeit at a brisker pace owing no doubt to our lack of a Pastor's obligations.

Henry said...

"Vernacular in the EF would bring it broader appeal and that magic number of 150 might happen actually."

Maybe so, maybe not. More vernacular in the EF might attract some additional attenders, but I doubt it would jump attendance at a 2 pm Sunday Mass from 40 to 150.

However, I feel pretty certain that--in your parish as I understand it--moving that EF Mass to a Sunday morning slot would increase its attendance to well above 200.

Why? Because for most Catholics, Mass is strictly a Sunday MORNING thing. It's in their DNA. Because for centuries Mass after noon was not allowed, so this was bred genetically into successive generations. It was not until 1957 that Pius XII allowed local ordinaries to permit afternoon or evening Masses.

So I'm confident that--in addition to the traditional Catholics who because of family commitments (e.g., home school soccer schedules) cannot always come to a Sunday afternoon Mass--a good many 11 am Sunday Mass Catholics (for instance) would remain such, whether the 11 am Mass is OF or EF.

Andy Milam said...

@ Templar

Thanks for the warm welcome.

I'm nowhere near you, as I live in Iowa, but spiritually it seems that I'm pretty close. I generally enjoy Father's musings, so much so that I added him to my blog roll about a year ago, so that those who read my blog have the chance to view his.

I normally lurk around here, but after a discussion about "taking action" with my brother-in-law this morning, I decided I would take a more stringent view and comment more vigorously when necessary.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I should clarify what I am saying--if I were to impose the EF Mass on one of our regularly attended OF Masses and all of them are well attended, there would be a riot from those, especially those, who have young children who would have to sit through an entirely Latin Mass. They would resent having had their Mass hijacked by the EF crowd of about 40 to 60 and forced to go to another Mass that would then become over-crowded. If I made our 12:10 Mass on Sunday an EF Mass, it would still only get about 100 people for all the others would stop coming by either going to antoher Mass or another church!
Now if the EF Mass had more vernacular that might be a different story--but there are pastoral sensibilities here. Of course another parish in town which only as one Sunday Mass could easily add an EF Mass every Sunday and at a very convenient time, but I still think they'd only get about 60 to 100 people.

Gene W. (formerly Pin) said...

Anonymous, The "relevant community of interpreters" does not include me, or you, or any laity...much less a blog.

Yes, I would say that Vat II and the US Constitution are very different in nature and concept.

It is not about blogs "bringing out the worst in us." It is about blogs being democratic and populist and how,in spite of themselves, they support an egalitarian mentality.

Ignotus, I was not expressing a desire for a utopian existence such as the secular paradise you envision. I was simply making an observation. Discussions of "issues within the Church" belong just there...within the Church...meaning not with the laity or even with Priests.

Henry said...

"if I were to impose the EF Mass on one of our regularly attended OF Masses and all of them are well attended, there would be a riot from those, especially those, who have young children who would have to sit through an entirely Latin Mass."

Tch, tch, so little faith in the traditional liturgy--which sustained the faith of families for centuries--to inspire new love in our age. (I won't even comment on that "their Mass".}

Seriously, over the years I've seen many young families come to their first TLM, usually because of conflicts with the OF schedule (and who otherwise never would have attended the dread "Latin Mass").

Almost invariably, they find that their children are entranced into uncharacteristically good behavior by the traditional Mass--both the chant and the silence, and perhaps the beauty and the Latin--the same children who (as you surely know better than I) are distracted into misbehavior by the ceaseless noise and chatter of the OF Mass.

Indeed, chance exposure like this is how for years our Latin Mass community has acquired almost all its young families, and consequently our new altar boys.

Pater Ignotus said...

Andy - I think the charge that pastors do not celebrate the EF because they are afraid of losing income is unsupportable. Further, such a charge - that 99.9% of pastors are primarily concerned about the parish income and not the spiritusal well-being of the congregants - is a serious accusation that ought to come with some evidence.

Marc - Can you suggest which "incorrect" part of the OF mass teaches "incorrect" dogma?

Militia Immaculata said...

The Novus Ordo is valid, but illicit.

No, the Novus Ordo is intrinsically both valid and licit. Granted, way too many individual celebrations of the NO are illicit (thanks to the liturgical abuses being committed there), but while the NO we have now isn't what the Council Fathers envisioned, to say that it's intrinsically illicit is seriously wrong. The Church promulgated it, after all.

The problem with the Novus Ordo is that the mind of the Fathers was never realized. The NO was hijacked and re-imagined by Bugnini and his cohorts to the point where what the Council Fathers envisioned and what came to be are two different things. It is for this reason that I advocate dumping the Novus Ordo.

Now that I agree with. I won't go so far as to say that I advocate dumping the NO entirely (simply because I don't feel it's my place to make such judgments), but if that happened, I wouldn't complain.

There is no way to make it licit, and if it cannot be licit, the spiritual growth is nil.

If the Church says it's licit, that should be good enough for us. Besides, you're treading on dangerous ground here. The Seventh Canon of the Sacrifice of the Mass from the Council of Trent states the following: "If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of Masses are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema." If the NO, an approved rite promulgated by the Church, were illicit and provided no spiritual growth, then that would make it an incentive to impiety. But Trent makes it clear that that can't be the case. To believe otherwise is to place oneself under Trent's anathema.

The ultimate undoing of the Novus Ordo was when the rubrics were changed from law to suggestion. The liturgy lost it's authority at that instant. And without that, there can be nothing theologically significant to bind the action to the Sacrament. With the TLM, we know, FOR CERTAIN, that the Mass is both valid and licit, if the rubrics are followed. Because it is unlawful to change the rubrics of the TLM.

How can you say the NO's rubrics "were changed from law to suggestion"? The NO has laws too that a priest must follow, and breaking them is unlawful (no matter how poorly enforced such laws may be at times).

Andy Milam said...

@ Pater Ignotus;

I daresay that it is supportable. If you have a Mass that regularly draws 300 people and replace it with a Mass that draws 40, you will lose money, unless those 40 are all very wealthy.

That is the impotice behind a lot of it. Like it or not, after discussing this with a great many priests and one bishop, that is the reasoning I got. As well as the "riot factor" that Fr. McDonald ascribes to.

Unsupportable, no. Completely logical, yes. Now, if Father Pastor were to properly catechize there would be no riot and people would assist at the TLM, and there would be no fall off. Interesting paradox, but all of that goes back to my earlier statement.

Andy Milam said...

Father:

You say, "-if I were to impose the EF Mass on one of our regularly attended OF Masses and all of them are well attended, there would be a riot from those, especially those, who have young children who would have to sit through an entirely Latin Mass."

Have you seen the number of young families that assist at the TLM? I don't buy that argument. In my small community (there are probably around 100 at the max), there are three families I would like to point out...family 1 -- 4 children under the age of 5, with another on the way. Family 2 -- 6 children, the oldest 13. Family 3 -- 12 children, the oldest 31, but they've been traddy since the 1990s. I just don't buy that argument. Sorry. Plus, Latin shouldn't be a deterrent since Vatican Council II says we need to know it.

You go on to say, "They would resent having had their Mass hijacked by the EF crowd of about 40 to 60 and forced to go to another Mass that would then become over-crowded. If I made our 12:10 Mass on Sunday an EF Mass, it would still only get about 100 people for all the others would stop coming by either going to antoher Mass or another church!"

I must be a prophet. Just sayin'. That argument is tired and untrue. If Father Pastor gets behind it, the faithful will fall in line. It really is that simple.

Further, you say, "Now if the EF Mass had more vernacular that might be a different story--but there are pastoral sensibilities here."

I wonder how pastoral sensibilities worked for 1965 years prior? Father Pastor can still preach in English or whatever, but the language of the Mass itself...well...if it was good enough for EVERY SINGLE SAINT, it is good enough for "Joe Parishoner," don't ya think?

Marc said...

Well, since I got roped into commenting, I'll just keep going (This is for you, Gene W and sorry, Anonymous 5!).

@ Pater: Ever heard of Cardinal Ottaviani? Read his Intervention for a discussion of the theological problems with the Novus Ordo.

@ Andy: I agree with everything you've said in this thread. Since I think you're new to commenting here, I will say this: I formerly commented here all the time, so I'll warn you not to start thinking that anything you write will actual influence anyone, including the priest commenters, to come back to Tradition. People like Pater Ignotus, who is an actual Catholic priest in "full Communion" with the Church and in good standing with his diocesan bishop, cannot even agree what "Tradition" is and argue absurd things like "The Novus Ordo is a Traditional Mass". It is scandalous - I know, because it has scandalized me personally.

Andy Milam said...

@ Militia Immaculata;

You say, "No, the Novus Ordo is intrinsically both valid and licit. Granted, way too many individual celebrations of the NO are illicit (thanks to the liturgical abuses being committed there), but while the NO we have now isn't what the Council Fathers envisioned, to say that it's intrinsically illicit is seriously wrong. The Church promulgated it, after all."

The Mass is a discipline. There is nothing dogmatic about the actions of the Mass, save the validity. And you don't find the fact that the Mass is not what the Council Fathers intended to be a serious problem? I do. Name the last time you went to two Novus Ordo Masses, in two different places and got the EXACT same Mass, with no deviation. I can tell you exactly the last time I went to two different TLM Masses in two different places and got the exact same Mass. Last week and the week before. Seriously deficient. And illicit. If you want to talk about the philosophy of the Mass being valid that is one thing. If you want to apply licitness to it, well, you can't. Licitness is incumbent upon the rubrics being followed without exception. That just doesn't happen (by design, thank you Fr. Bugnini,et. al.) in the Novus Ordo. The Novus Ordo by design is not based on law, but on suggestion. And that is breaking liturgical law. And that is illicit.

You say, "How can you say the NO's rubrics "were changed from law to suggestion"? The NO has laws too that a priest must follow, and breaking them is unlawful (no matter how poorly enforced such laws may be at times)."

Look at the language used in the rubrics. In the 1962 rubrics they are definitive and they are clear. In the 1970 (et. al.) they are ambiguous at best, and are muddled in application. The best way to put it is this; 1962 -- will and must; 1970 (et. al.) -- should and can. There is no way to enforce what should be law in the 1970 Missal. Because how do you enforce should?

An objective look shows no conclusion but what is found. Mind you, I'm not questioning validity. But I am questioning licitness...which btw, is in my privy per Redemptionis Sacramentum.

Andy Milam said...

@ Marc,

I comment on blogs like this one and others in order to be a witness to tradition. Sometimes catechesis means banging one's head against a wall. But eventually the wall will fall down. God has given the Church and the truth of the Church that strength and me (and those like me) the armor to keep banging away. If one person gets something out of what I post, be it here, at my blog or somewhere else, then I have done what the Lord has asked. So, I'll post. I'll debate. And I'll have fun doing it. I don't take it personally, it is the nature of being a catechist. The abuse comes to find us, it is how we handle it that makes us persevere.

Pater Ignotus said...

Andy - Your Collection Plate math may be right, but that doesn't lead to the conclusion that the reason pastors don't celebrate the EF is that they will lose money.

Marc - I have heard of Ottaviani, but he's not the one who asserted here that the OF mass teaches incorrect dogma.

And I know well what Tradition is -and, as importantly, what it is not. If you are scandalized it is because you have found cause where it does not exist.

Gene W. (formerly Pin) said...

Marc, I am glad you are back and hope you will remain. Now, do not say you are "scandalized." It makes you sound like a little old Baptist lady back in the '50's who wandered into her husband's workshop and got a glimpse of the Marilyn Monroe calendar. LOL! Say something like, "it really p***es me off," or "I'd like to snatch out his spine and shove it down his throat"...something like that. It is far more expressive and reflects an aggressive, unflinching
response to such glib apostasy. We cannot afford to be scandalized, mortified, horrified, appauled or other feminine sounding reactions that make us sound weak...

Anonymous said...

Gene (at 1:49 p.m.), I should have been clearer in my comments.

I was trying to defend what I understood to be Father’s point – that just because a constitutive document has been hijacked by the relevant “community of interpreters” in the form of illicit interpretation (the Constitution by ultra-activist judges, lawyers, and legal academics, say, and Vatican II by . . . .) does not necessarily mean that the Fathers of those documents are to blame or that the documents themselves are suspect. As to the relevant “community of interpreters” for Vatican II, I did not specify who they are. Indeed, is it really for me to do so or is it for the magisterium? If the magisterium sees fit to include the laity, fine; if not, fine. Either way I defer to the magisterium.

I agree that the Constitution and Vatican II are very different in nature and concept. The issue is whether they differ materially in this particular respect.

I concede your powerful insight about blogs contributing to a democratic ethos in the Church. However, Father has decided to have one, and I defer to Father. As long as he remains so decided, isn't it appropriate for us to seek to clarify, question, and probe on various points, as you do on this point? And I really do lament that blogs frequently bring out the worst in us. That is one reason I support and urge appropriate civility in conversation (although I do recognize that in some limited circumstances incivility may be a necessary evil).

Marc said...

@ Andy: There are only so many times you can bang your head against a wall before giving yourself a concussion. Let's just hope the wall falls before we incur serious head injuries.

@ Gene: I meant "scandalized" in the technical sense of the word. I guess I would also add that I have lost a lot of faith in Catholic seminaries by reading this blog and the comments.

@ Pater: I didn't say the Novus Ordo taught incorrect dogma. I said the Novus Ordo shows forth an incorrect version of dogma. I'm not going to continue engaging you on this. Now that you've admitted you've heard of Cardinal Ottaviani, perhaps you should read what he wrote about the Novus Ordo Missae.

Anyway... since you claim Andy's collection plate math doesn't lead to the conclusions he draws, why don't you, Fr. Kavanaugh, explain to us why you personally do not offer the Extraordinary Form of the Mass at the parish where you are pastor?

Pater Ignotus said...

Marc - So how does the OF "show forth incorrect version of dogma?"

And I did not "admit" that I know of Ottaviani, I simply stated that I know the man. And since you, not Ottaviani, made the above assertion in this blog, you ought to be able to give an example or two.

Gene W. (formerly Pin) said...

Anon, we have no basic disagreement here. As I said, I enjoy the blog and contribute often. But, I use technology and other conveniences that contribute to our de-humanization and isolation within faux communities (like blogs). The fact that I sin does not mean I approve of the sins I commit.
I also defer to the Magisterium, but I ventured the wild notion that the Magisterium does not include Joe the bartender, Susie the hairdresser, or Tom the Philosophy professor in the "relevant community of inmterpreters."

I would argue that anger and disgust, and the sarcasm, wit, and incivilities those emotions engender, are not "the worst in us." These responses are the normal responses of anyone with passion, insight, and a degree of righteous anger. The worst in us is to sit passively and "reasonably" by and try to solve problems by defining them while responding to the enemies of the Church and the culture with convoluted verbiage and niceness. (See: Neville Chamberlin)

Andy Milam said...

@ Pater Ignotus;

You say, "Your Collection Plate math may be right, but that doesn't lead to the conclusion that the reason pastors don't celebrate the EF is that they will lose money. "

What is the reason pastors don't celebrate the EF then? Clearly it is being called for. You have never met me and I am a random here, yet I'm calling for it. Perhaps an exegetical study on Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae amongst the bloggers here would be in order. There's an idea. We could have a bloggers round table, take a section or two at a time, blog about it and then comment back and forth, with some serious rules and guidelines.

I think that could bear some fruit, don't you think, Fathers?

Andy Milam said...

@ Marc;

That is why I wear the armor of the Church, so I don't hurt my head. LOL!!!! And I can headbang longer...just not to Metallica or Megadeath...to something worse, liberal Catholics and nuns. That is truly diabolical....LOL!!!! :)

Joseph Johnson said...

Ottaviani refresher anyone?

I know I am "preaching to the choir" here, but maybe Pater Ignotus and others (even Fr. McDonald, if he hasn't read it) might benefit from reading Cardinal Ottaviani's letter to Pope Paul VI dated September 25, 1969, which can be found on the EWTN library site.

To understand the mindset of many of the commenters here, whether one agrees with its content or not, it would be helpful to read this letter and its point by point critique of the the Novus Ordo Missae and the history of the popularly known "Ottaviani Intervention." To say that one "has heard of" Ottaviani or "knows the man" is not enough in these discussions, whether one agrees with him or not.

In any discussion, it always helps to know where people are "coming from." It should be at least helpful to know that views, very close to those held by many commenters on this blog, have also been held by Cardinals and Bishops in our Church. As I recall, this critique from 1969 was the result of a joint study effort by Cardinals Bacci, Ottaviani, and quite a few others, headed by none other than Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

I had not read it in quite a while and I felt I was in good company when I saw that even Ottaviani et al. apparently also had a problem with the elimination of the previously required purification of the priest's fingers etc.

rcg said...

Andy I think you are correct but maybe should look to the Bishops. One has to hope this is not some incremental exit for the Church, so the only answer must be they are afraid that the parishioners will simply move on to real Protestant Churches where they can enjoy an even better busk for the entire family for only a couple of bucks in the hat.

Andy Milam said...

@ rcg;

I disagree 1000%. Using your logic, if the faithful are going to be driven away from the Church by doing things which are Catholic from time immemorial, then the traddy's worst fear is realized.

If your position is correct, then the Protestant mentality has already overtaken and controls the Church.

No, that is not correct. The answer doesn't lie with the bishops. The Holy Father took that obstacle away from the Church. He placed it squarely in the hands of the priests and the faithful. It is a proven fact that the largest growth in the Church today is not coming from the Novus Ordo, but from the TLM. So, while bishops are starting, finally, to get on board, this movement has existed since 1970 and gained real momentum in 1976, then again in 1988, then again in 2000, then again in 2009. The growth has been exponential. And all of this in spite of the bishops. No, we don't look to the bishops in this, we look to the faithful who just won't give up on the Church.

The faithful want to be Catholic, it is the leadership that doesn't want them to be so. If they did, they wouldn't fight what it means to be Catholic so vehemently. The Church didn't start in 1965. It started 1965 years before that.

Steven P. Millies said...

The cafeteria is open, after all.

"What has changed is the fact that Rome no longer makes total acceptance of Vatican II a prerequisite for the canonical solution."

http://www.dici.org/en/news/interview-with-bishop-bernard-fellay-on-relations-with-rome/

Templar said...

Millies finally posts something worth reading, albeit I doubt that he views it the same way I do.

Flash Foward: Cardinal Fellay, Prefect of the CDF announced today....

Oh yeah baby.

Steven P. Millies said...

Templar, I think we read it exactly the same way: hypocrisy at the highest levels of the Church. We both know it. It's just that you're cheerful about it because you agree with the product.

As someone put it a few years ago. "The cafeteria isn't closed. But the line forms to the right."

Have it your way, fellas. A win is a win, I guess. Good on you. Just, please, don't call this anything other than the rank dishonesty that it is. Celebrate accordingly.

Gene W. (formerly Pin) said...

Gee, Millie...do I detect a bitter sentiment? LOL! LOL! LOL!

Templar said...

I don't view it as hypocrisy at all. I view it as the Church pulling it's collective Head out of the sand and waking up to the barren fields that are the fruits of VATIKAN TEW!!

I'll celebrate anything that you and Pater and those cut from your cloth find bad.

rcg said...

Andy, sadly, it is my position, but not that it disagrees with yours as much as it parallels it. The TLM parishes that are growing are separate from the OF. Some people are returning to the Church via the TLM parishes, some are moving to them from the OF parishes. This leave the OF parishes almost exclusively populated by the Spirit of Vateken Tew people. Whatever my opinion of those masses, as long as they are legitimate the Bishop would be nuts, and wrong, to close them or redirect them too strongly. In our part of the world it looks like three parishes are about to have to merge. Two are relatively strong and big enough to absorb the other two neighbours. One that is in the running to stay open runs a hugely popular Folk Mass and Rock Mass. I have been and they show Youtube videos during the service and everything. I left imprints of my fingers in the pew.

In any case, I see it as a sort of internal evangelisation we need to do. The Pope said, I think while he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, that the Church may have to get smaller before it gets larger. And there is always the hope they will return to the place they think they already are.

Templar said...

rcg, are you serious? I would be taking video and sending it to the Bishop and forcing him to act. And if that failed, I would be sending the video to Rome

rcg said...

The Bishop thinks these guys are great, generally. Not sure about the Folk Mass, although it is advertised on the scrolling Marque they have out front.