Who are the ones who cry crocodile tears about 7/7/07's SP and simply refuse to accept that there are now two equal forms of the one Roman Rite?
Who have the most difficulty with the reform of the reform of the OF Mass and more use of Latin?
Who have the most difficulty with ad orientem, kneeling for Holy Communion and the Cultic aspect of the exclusively male ordained priesthood?
Who are having the most difficulty with chanting the actual Mass and eliminating trendy, secular sounding hymns and contemporary songs?
Who in the contemporary Catholic world can't cope with these changes and are digging in their heels and using poor Pope Francis as their crutch against these changes?
29 comments:
Who are the ones who skip OF mass when the music chosen does not suit their personal musical preferences?
Who are the ones who laud traditionalist "C"atholics for skipping mass, stating that they are "stalwart" Catholics?
Who are the ones who intentionally misrepresent the thoughts words of those who celebrate the OF?
Who are the ones who think that the mass is meant for their own individual sanctification, ignoring the fact that the mass, by its very nature, is a communal act? (It is an action of the whole Church each and every time.)
Who are the priests who pretend that SP, which explicitly forbids mixing the rubrics of the OF and EF masses, really allows for this, calling it "gravitational pull?"
Who are the ones who accuse OF Catholics of being less than Catholic because they don't wear mantillas, maniples, or "Sunday-Go-To-Meeting" clothes to church?
Who are the ones who DENY the authority of the pope and the bishops unless their words are "de fide" and/or "ex cathedra?"
Since Pope Francis officiated at tango and giant puppet Masses and committed liturgical abuse on one of the holiest nights of the year, and permitted the MBS to be distributed in plastic cups on a beach, and was the first pope to forbid celebration of the Tridentine Mass, I would have to say it's Francis...Bishop of Rome. Just because he said Mass facing liturgical east twice means nothing. Cardinal Mahoney wore fiddlebacks. A liberal is a liberal is a liberal.
At Fr. Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment blog:
MUTUAL ENRICHMENT: IT'S HAPPENING!
http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/mutual-enrichment-its-happening.html
Such things can be found among Novus Ordo celebrants ... both Benedict XVI and Francis have been noticed (thanks to the immediacy of Vatican Player) observing usages derived from the older form of the Roman Rite. . . . .
I conclude with a brief comment on today's post in Rorate Caeli. It is post which speaks negatively about the Reform of the Reform. . . . . Should we undermine Catholic Clergy who feel they can take their people with them most easily by a gradual transformation of the OF ... until the day comes when the transition to the EF is totally painless?
Who are the ones that hates the liturgy per 1962 Missal? Liberals, that's who.
Liberals are people who's main existential mantra is: everything is relative. They also favor choice as long as the choice is what they approve of. With such rigid, ideological world view, I question if one can be Catholic and/or Christian at all?
Dear Pater Ignited,
I do not like the Ordinary Form. However, thanks to the generous attitudes of the "open minded" priests in this diocese, I have no Extraordinary Form Mass to attend within a reasonable distance. I endure sappy, moronic music every week. I hold every Catholic accountable who misses Mass and would never consider a traditionalist Catholic "stalwart" for ignoring their obligation. I fully accept Mass as a communal act AND a ritual provided for my personal sanctification. While I believe that people should dress well for Mass, I have no right to judge anyone's disposition as a Catholic, and certainly not based on their attire. I do not deny the authority of any pope or bishop, unless they abuse their authority in a manner that contradicts the explicit teachings of the Church, such as Cardinal Mahony's pathetic attempt to re-define the Mass in "We Gather Faithfully Together."
For years, the anti-Tradionalist camp has repeated the same lies over and over again: Traditionalists are anti-semitic, intolerant, old-fogeys with a distorted nostalgia of the past. A visit to any FSSP parish would quickly disabuse one of such ridiculous notions.
Painting stereotypes with such a broad brush is a very effective tool for stirring up negative feelings. However, it is a very poor tool for bridging differences and doing anything constructive.
Anon Guy: "Painting stereotypes with such a broad brush . . ."
If you're referring to the initial comment in this thread . . . Those are not stereotypes of any of the faithfully believing Catholics I see at EF Masses.
No, those are, instead, ridiculous straw-man caricatures. But I fear that their benighted author actually believes they apply. Maybe all he needs is to get out and spend some quality time with real-life faithful Catholics. Might really open his eyes!
Pater Ignotus
SP does not say anything about "mixing rubrics" and doesn't "explicitly forbid" anything. In fact, although there was a general prohibition of mixing rites, if the EF and OF are forms of the same Roman Rite, mixing of rites arguably does not apply.
Regarding music, if I ever heard Marty Haugen's "Gather us in" substituting for the Introit, then the only thing gathering me in would be the nearest pub, since I would know what to expect. If it were then impracticable to find somewhere decent then my conscience would be clear.
Fortunately I am sufficiently discerning not to be put in that position. Liberal clerics amaze me - YOU are obliged to attend, regardless; THEY can serve up liturgical abuses and vomit-inducing "music" and then presume to lecture YOU about obligation. Sorry, it won't wash.
Plaid Lad and Henry - All of the references I made in my post are based on statements that have been made by "traditionalists" on this very blog.
I don't think for a second that every traditionalist is anti-Semitic, but you can read anti-Semitism in comments from traditionalist here.
And if you want to see intolerance and racism at its worst, keep reading the comments from some of the "stalwart" traditionalists here.
PI: "All of the references I made in my post are based on statements that have been made by "traditionalists" on this very blog."
Exactly what I meant, PI. I see this same stuff myself, but essentially only on blogs, from people who so far as I know exist only in the aether, because I don't hear such things in my continual contacts with real-life traditional Catholics--i.e., faithful Catholics.
This is why I (again) respectfully suggest that it might open your eyes to get away from the computer as (apparently) your only source of information, and out into the real world of faithful Catholics. (Your own internet comments can only provoke curiosity as to what kind of Catholics you minister to predominantly.)
There is only one sin according to the modern world: causing offense. So, to say that Jews adhere to a false, man-made religion and must convert to be saved is a great sin.
Anonymous;
So THAT is the reason Traditionalists are accused of being anti-semitic? Anybody who believes it is anti-semitic to believe that Jews must accept Jesus Christ is an idiot. It would be anti-Semitic NOT to offer them the gospel. It would be like a doctor knowing you had a fatal disease, knowing what the cure is and telling the patient, "Oh you're just fine. Keep doing what you're doing."
What rot.
To echo Henry's comment, most real life Traditionalists are too busy raising their armies of children and driving hours to Mass and Catechesis with those children to fit the stereotype PI is advancing.
I've attended the Traditional Mass in 6 states at parishes of the SSPX, FSSP, Institute of Christ the King, and various dioceses. The people are really just trying to live the Catholic life, and they take it seriously.
I think some on the internet are hostile because they aren't able to get to this sort of stable parish environment where they can simply live the faith because the priests and bishops are obstructionist. It can make one bitter having to drive three hours roundtrip for Mass on Sunday...
Henry - Why should I expect these so-called traditionalists to be different away from their computers?
Are they schizophrenic? Is it multiple-personality disorder? I don't think so.
As my views expressed on this or any other blog are the real me, I would expect that others would operate in the same manner.
If you want to know what "kind of Catholics" I minister to, I suggest that you step away from your computer as your only source of information about me and drop in at Holy Spirit Parish any time you care to. You'll find as wonderful a community of Catholics here as in any parish!
And "traditionalist" Catholics aren't the only ones who are faithful.
I would have thought that to say the Jews adhere to a false man-made religion is just plain wrong. However, to state that the new and everlasting covenant established by Jesus Christ replaced the old one is not anti-Semitic - the "two covenant" idea floated in some Catholic circles since the Council could well be heretical. Nor is it anti-Semitic to question the activities of the ADL or the Simon Wiesenthal Institute.
Those Jewish groups who campaigned against the beatification and later canonization of Edith Stein should have been told in no uncertain terms to mind their own business.
John, I think studying modern Rabbinical Judaism will demonstrate it is man-made as in it is not the same Judaism into which our Lord was born. There is no continuity there. And that makes sense because the religion of the Old Covenant ended and was superseded, as you rightly point out. That fact, again, demonstrates its falsity. And if it is not from God, it is, necessarily, man-made...
Aside from that, everything about your post is correct and not contradictory with my own.
To simplify my last comment:
The Old Covenant ended when it was superseded by the advent of Christ.
It was definitively and obviously ended with the fall of the Temple.
After the fall of the Temple, those who failed to recognize Christ as the New Covenant continued in a system of "religion" without the Temple.
That system of religion was not commanded by God.
Therefore, modern Judaism is man-made.
(I don't see this as particularly controversial or even up for debate. I'm a little surprised to have to set this out, honestly.)
Pater Ignotus, I believe you must have missed the point I tried to make. For like you, I do not doubt that internet comment views, however extreme they may be, fairly represent the views of those making them.
What I doubt is that the "rad trads" who express extreme views so prominently on the internet, are actually the faithfully worshiping Catholics who are the heart of every traditional Mass congregation that I've seen in ordinary parishes or in FSSP communities.
Hence I suspect that these "internet traditionalists" are either just that--on the internet only, or in their imaginations, and not at a licit EF Mass every Sunday. And thus are not the kind of faithful Catholics who predominate in the larger traditional Catholic movement within the Church.
I myself have throughout my adult life been both an active member--RE teacher, lector, parish council member, prayer group leader, the usual parish committees, etc--of ordinary Catholic parishes wherever I've been in several states and dioceses during the past 50 years, still regularly attending OF Mass on weekdays (as I do now) whenever in recent years an EF Mass was available to me on Sundays.
This extensive experience with all types of Catholics and communities is the basis for my knowledge that traditional Catholics attending EF Masses are not fundamentally different from fully faithful (as opposed to cafeteria) Catholics attending OF Masses. Indeed, most of the leaders I have known in EF Mass communities have all been active members of ordinary parishes (perhaps one no different from yours). In particular, those I attend EF Mass with now on Sundays are not fundamentally different in faith and practice from those I say OF morning prayer with or attend OF Mass with during the week.
But your comments--which I presume represent accurately your own honestly-based personal views--indicate that you do see fundamental differences where I know from my thorough real-life experience there are none. So I must wonder whether they could possibly derive from actual experience on the ground with real-life traditional Mass Catholics.
I agree with Henry. PI seems to have some peculiar obsessions. One of these is the maniple. A vestment of considerable antiquity, it was originally carried in the left hand (if you look at the coronation of King Harold in the Bayeux Tapestry, Archbishop Stigant is carrying one). It was made optional in 1967, and consequently new vestment sets did not include it (until fairly recently, that is).
Another thing that seems to exercise him is the idea that traditionally-minded Catholics are looking for an excuse to "skip" mass (sic) and that the difference between sacro-pop drivel and Gregorian Chant is a question of personal preference. Neither happens to be true.
Another canard is that traditionally-minded Catholics don't understand what the Mass is about. In fact they tend to be more liturgically aware than most and would agree with Benedict XVI that in too many places it is the OF which stresses the horizontal over the vertical, the particular community rather than the whole Church.
As for PI's last comment, traditionally-minded Catholics accept the infallibility of both the extraordinary and the universal and ordinary Magisterium, and give religious submission of intellect and will to non-infallible but authoritative teaching. Run this past liberals (and I have done) and they have apoplexy.
If traditionally-minded Catholics can occasionally be over-scrupulous about attention to detail, this is understandable given what prevails in most parishes. However, they are rarely censorious. Not long ago a visiting priest had to stand in at an EF Mass locally. He was not completely au fait with the Rite, and made quite a few mistakes. Everyone in the congregation noticed, but no-one said anything; they were just grateful that he had travelled some distance not only to say Mass for them, but to stay and hear confessions afterwards.
Henry - I agree that radtrad bloggers don't represent the who traditionalist world. But, I can respond only to those who post here.
Now, Good Fr. McDonald likes to post pictures of liturgical silliness, hoping to gin up belief that all non-EF celebrations mirror such inanity. They don't, of course. But, then, representing reality isn't Fr. McDonald's purpose of goal.
John - I am not obsessed with maniples. This "vestment of considerable antiquity" is merely a handy example to use from time to time as we discuss the development of the liturgy.
Pin/Gene, as you well know, is "traditional" Catholic I refer to when I talk about people skipping mass. I don't think he represents most Catholics. But his past behavior colors - or shall I says, taints - his judgments about me and others of my ilk - or anyone, for that matter.
Again, "traditionally-minded" Catholics on this very blog have claimed the right to reject any magisterial teaching that is not presented as "de fide" or "ex cathedra." They have claimed the right to pass judgment on popes, bishops, councils - anyone whose view they don't like.
This isn't Catholic belief or behavior. Those who claim to be Catholic while reserving the right to reject what they don't like are, simply, not Catholics.
Ignotus, I mentioned that I "skipped" Mass one time several years ago. You still like to bring that up? At least I have never refused to confess my belief in theReal Presence or the bodily resurrection of Jesus, as you have several times. You are an embarrassment to Catholics everywhere.
It was obvious that PI was writing about the people on this board. I don't disagree entirely because, and moly because, the OF is a valid form of the Mass. For my part a significant reason for my leaving the OF parish was their incorrect portrayal of Liturgey in counter response to the Third Translation and open antipathy toward the EF parish. Contrast with the EF parish I hear practically nothing derogatory of any OF parish or Mass rather a sincere and focused effort to show their deepest love for the terrible Creator, tender Son, and enthralling Spirit. It comes down to the difference in respect the parishes show to God in the execution of the Mass forms they have chosen.
Pin/Gene - You did not "mention" that you skipped mass. You trumpeted it as an act of your singular superiority. You did it and you were glad you did.
I bring it up - along with your repeated references to African-Americans as a "feral minority" - to warn other readers that your judgments of me and other who disagree with you are highly suspect.
I have never refused to confess the Bodily Resurrection or the Real presence. I have refused to submit to your judgment since, as all Catholics know, it is the judgment of the local ordinary that matters.
Not yours.
PI, I do recall when Gene made those statements. I don't recall if I wrote to him privately or publicly about that as a sin, but I recall that he publicly admitted that it was wrong and that he needed to confess it. I hope, of course he did, but as far as I am concerned he set it right in the public square. So I think it is specious to constantly resurrect it as an example without at least the complete story and probably a real problem for you if you continue to do it. I will admit to the same struggle and have had to discuss the issues delicately with my children after some particularly stupid Mass events trying to help them retain respect for the clergy while perhaps pity for the clergyman and congregation.
PI
"Those who claim to be Catholic while reserving the right to reject what they don't like are, quite simply, not Catholics".
Would you apply this to the great swathes of lay Catholics in Europe and North America who do just that? Not to mention openly dissenting priests and religious?
Are the LCWR traditionalists? I await your answer.
Ignotus, you are a bold faced liar. In fact, if I see you in Macon I will call you that to your face. I never asked you the question about the Real Presence or the Bodily Resurrection. It was another blogger and you refused to answer saying (quote) "The question is a trap and it is beneath me too answer it." So, it is beneath a Catholic Priest to publicly con fess a belief in the Real Presence and there Bodily resurrection…amazing.
Nor did I "trumpet" my skipping Mass as an act of my singular superiority. I emphasized it as a reaction to a horrible OF Mass performed in a sloppy manner by a Priest who did not give a damn. I discussed it as a genuine struggle (for which you have no appreciation) and also said that I went to Confession regarding it.
You constantly lie and twist people's words on this blog. You have always done it and a number of people have called you on it, but you just keep right on. These are all the personality traits of a sociopath and a con man, which I believe you to be. God may use you to his good purpose when you are in persona Christsi, but I have no use for you at all and find you to be filled with a certain substance. God help your parishioners.
John, I feel certain that virtually all of those attending licit EF Masses accept official Church teaching in its totality (by any reasonable definition of the term), as do all the priests who celebrate those EF Masses. I've never heard a dissenting view expressed in any such community.
But I suspect that the OF-only parish, where a majority accepts the totality of Catholic teaching, is rare. Because in my experience in a very large number of such parishes in different areas of the country, I've never seen one where dissenting views were not common (among laity or clergy or both).
John - I made no distinctions nor suggested any exceptions when I stated "Those who claim to be Catholic while reserving the right to reject what they don't like are, quite simply, not Catholics".
Pin/Gene - You have called me a apostate, heretic, agnostic, modernist, worst priest in the history of the world, embarrassment, etc etc etc. So your threat to call me a liar (which you have already done repeatedly anyway) is going to have what effect?
No, I will not answer YOUR questions about my beliefs. I have repeatedly said that I believe all that the Church teaches and believes to be true.
You are not competent to judge the heart or beliefs of anyone other than yourself. You claim to read peoples' minds and hearts, but that is only puffery and self-righteous blather.
And even if I did submit to your judgment, which I will not do, you would not accept any answer I might gives since, in your omniscience, you know everything already.
See you around town!
Ignotus, are you completely daft? They are not MY questions about your belief. They are another blogger's. I do not have any questions regarding your belief. I have not had any since you first opened you gob on this blog. It has always been clear to me what your "beliefs" are. In theology, we call them "unbelief."
"Those who claim to be Catholic while reserving the right to reject what they don't like are, quite simply, not Catholics".
Have truer words ever been written here? Unfortunately, they probably imply that many or most of those who think they are Catholics, are not.
Post a Comment