It's beginning to feel a lot like 1968 this year both in the revolution of what is taking place in the Church and the revolutions in society.
Like 1968, there is a great deal of racial tension and some folks are being radicalized not just by off-the-rails radicalized Islam but also off-the-rails radicalized Christianity such as the KKK which I suspect Dylann Roof would have admired if he wasn't a member of it as a "good Christian".
Like 1968, we are in the midst of another sexual revolution that is the logical outcome of the 1968 one, the so-called gay revolution. The apex of this revolution may come home to roost today as it is likely the Supreme Court will make a ruling today or in the next several days concerning the legality of same sex marriage and states' rights to either have or reject it.
If I were placing a wager, I think that the Supreme Court will legalize "gay civil unions" as having the rights and privileges accorded by the state to those in legal marriages. I just wish they would keep sex out of it and simply say that anyone who enters into a legal agreement with another or many others have the same rights as those in natural marriages when it comes to state and federal civil benefits.
Heck, I would marry (enter a civil union) (not for sex) my best friend if I could get his retirement and social security after he dies! Sounds like a win-win proposition for me. He could get mine too if I die first!
The Church will have to deal with this. I think on the positive side we must say God bless you and enjoy your civil benefits especially retirement and social security benefits once a partner dies. That is a political issue and the Church shouldn't have a policy one way or another although individual Catholics could have political issues with such a civil arrangement accorded to just about anyone.
I will not call same sex civil unions marriage. I will call them civil unions. I pray that our American Bishops the USCCB will make a nationwide policy that Catholics must have the civil aspects of their civil union made legal, not by the Church, but at the courthouse where they procure their marriage license. In other words, they should have a brief civil ceremony at the time of getting their marriage licenese sign by the civil magistrate or notary pubic.
Then the couple presents this license to the priest or deacon witnessing the "Solemnization" of their marriage in the Church for the marriage file. Only then can the bishop, priest or deacon celebrate the Nuptial Liturgy. The clergy, in this method of requiring the civil union to be in place first, do not sign any civil license and is in no way an agent of the State when it comes to Catholic/Christian marriage which we call the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.
Like 1968, the Church is dealing with a controversial encyclical. Then it was Blessed Pope Paul's Humanae Vitae; today it is Pope Francis' Laudato Si.
What's interesting and different though is that in 1968 the progressives turned on Blessed Pope Paul VI and screamed the loudest about this Encyclical which many today and some who then were rebellious would see as prophetic.
With the 2015 Encyclical, the shoe is on the right foot and the conservatives are the ones screaming the loudest about this Encyclical which, like Humanae Vitae, will be seen generations from now as prophetic.
The conservatives are just as ugly in their rhetoric against Pope Francis as the progressives were toward Blessed Pope Paul VI! The two groups are birds of the same feather, just differing ideologies and disobedience, framed within the context of contempt for the person of the Holy Father.
In what other ways is 1968 comparable to 2015? I ask; you answer!
59 comments:
"The conservatives are just as ugly in their rhetoric against Pope Francis as the progressives were toward Blessed Pope Paul VI! The two groups are birds of the same feather, just differing ideologies and disobedience, framed within the context of contempt for the person of the Holy Father. "
Oh come on Father. Not agreeing with that scowling, devious, limping, pontificating, sloppy, Tradition/tradition hating, fat Jesuit isn't ugly. It's just making the mess that the old man called for. Mission accomplished. And when he approves sacraligeous communions and sodomy the stage will be set for him to be declared a heretic and and anti pope. The Church will formally split. How's that for a mess.
'Scowling, devious, limping, pontificating, sloppy, Tradition/tradition hating, fat Jesuit' -- has this turned into Mundabor's blog?!
I think the big difference between 1968 and 2015 is in Western attitudes towards political and economic change, particularly among the young. Back in 68, young people thought they could change the world for the better: not just socially and sexually, but in terms of replacing the capitalist system with something more equitable.
Young people may be just as liberal-minded today when it comes to sexuality, but the belief that the world can be changed for the better seems to have disappeared in all but a few. Perhaps this in part explains Pope Francis's popularity, in that he seems the only Western figurehead who offers a genuine alternative to the status quo.
I have actually been disgusted about how lovers of the TLM have been recently treating the Holy Father on blogs because of his encyclical on God's creation. From my experience, I had been wondering if there were something about the TLM that attracts so called "right wing nutties", and it seems it does, a lot of them. Those wanting to experience a TLM will get a lot more than they bargained for, which means the TLM is not going to expand much among normal, middle of the road, Catholics. Now I understand why the Holy Father has a bit of contempt for "traditionalists".
Yes, Victor, in the last three years traditionalists have done more to undermine the TLM than any other group in the Church and if they keep it up the TLM will come to be viewed as the Confederate Flag of the Catholic Church--they haven't a clue what it means to be a traditional Catholic, not a clue at all.
The Traditional Mass attracts people who actually believe the Catholic Faith. Oftentimes, those people are forced to travel hours to Mass on Sundays and Holy Days because the priests and bishops refuse to offer the Traditional Mass locally. This is difficult to understand because the priests and bishops, in doing so, evidence a contempt for the Catholic Faith when they should be its staunchest supporters.
On top of that, attendance at the Traditional Mass is an intentional activity, meaning that people are thinking about it and making their choice to attend intentionally. Those people also happen to, for the most part, pay more attention to the goings on in the Church.
So you have a group of people who take the Faith seriously and who are watching what is happening in the Church. And they are seeing some very bizarre things coming out of Rome and from the Pope's own words and actions. Coupled with their already rightly activated skepticism about the clergy from the negative experiences with the local priests and bishops, they are dismayed at the plight of the Church and recognize that it is the human element of the Church that is the cause of many of these problems.
Catholics have a contempt for those who are attempting to turn the Church into something that she is not or to lead the flock into error of one sort or another. Traditional Catholics, therefore, aware of the reality fight back on behalf of our Holy Mother the Church. It is those who pretend that everything is fine and support the modern errors as they spread that are far from Catholic in their hearts. They are unwilling to suffer ridicule for th Faith, choosing instead to follow the world and its accolades.
Here is what it means to be a Catholic -- being an active member of the Church militant and standing out from the world as salt and light. Fighting against the errors inside and outside the Church. Participating in the worship and belief of the centuries of Catholics who went before us in sainthood through struggle and sometimes martyrdom.
There is no such thing as a "normal, middle of the road Catholic." Such a person is lukewarm and should consider our Lord's words for that sort. There is also no "right wing" in the Church, as that is a political descriptors. One is either a devout Catholic or one is not. The Traditional Mass attracted nearly all the saints of the western Church for about 1,500 years. It isn't a show piece for a political statement or ideology, it is the pinnacle of Catholic worship as delivered to us by the saints. The fact that most clergy, bishops, and the pope seem to despise it indicates quite a bit about them, but proves nothing about the Mass itself, which we know to be holy and saint-making.
By the way, here is a reminder to those who, instead of arguing against the erroneous positions and actions of the pope and those who support and are intent to follow him into error, use personal insults:
“We should pray also for the faithful who maintain Tradition that they may always preserve a strong, firm attitude, but not an attitude for contempt for persons, insult to persons, insult to bishops. We have the advantage of possessing the truth - we are not at fault - just as the Church has the superiority over error of having the truth: that superiority is hers. Because we have the conviction that we are upholding the truth, that the truth must make headway, that truth must convince, it is not our person. It is not outbursts of anger, or insults to people, which will give added weight to truth. On the contrary, that could cast doubt upon our possession of the truth. Becoming angry and insulting shows that we do not completely trust in the weight of truth, which is the weight of God Himself. It is in God that we trust, in Truth which is God, which is our Lord Jesus Christ. What can be surer than that? Nothing. And little by little that truth makes, and will make, its way. It must. So let us resolve that in our expressions and attitudes we shall not despise and insult people, but be firm against error - absolutely firm, without compromise, without relaxation, because we are with our Lord. It is a question of our Lord Jesus Christ. The honor of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glory of the Blessed Trinity is at stake, not the infinite glory in heaven, but the glory here below on earth. It is truth; and we defend it at any cost, whatever happens.”
- Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Pope Francis has not taught in a formal way by letter or encyclical anything that is heretical or heterodox. He may have said silly-off-the-cuff comments and is allowing discussion of things up until now not allowed on official levels.
If a pope were to teach in a formal way heterodox or heretical teachings, I think there are strict criteria as to who decides this and as far as I can tell from our hierarchical Church it isn't the laity who decree this or any one bishop, especially a bishop who is excommunicated for schism and dies in that excommunication.
So let's get real. You highlight for us just what I mean when I say that some so-called traditionalists don't have a clue as to what being a traditionalist means.
Father, Are you talking to me? If so, it's unclear to what part of my comment you are responding...
Anyway, don't you think we can expect a little more from the Catholic pope than that he hasn't officially tried to teach heresy?
I'd sure like to hear more about your "best friend" who you "would marry". Is it someone we know?
I have many BFFs here in Macon, Pensacola and Augusta. I just have to be very selective in terms of the wealth I could get when my civil partner dies. Actually I could be unscrupulous and enter into a civil partnership with the richest widow or widower in the parish!
Victor,
Most Catholics who participate weekly in the EF Mass are young and quiet. They are usually too busy providing for their large families to frequent weblogs. If they have concerns about a pope, bishop or cleric, then they talk to their spiritual directors in private.
There are also many Catholics attracted to the EF Mass, but without access to it, and so they are not being formed by it. They then express their opinions on the internet.
Stereotypes and prejudices should be avoided. And, generally speaking, extremists--whether political, racial or ritual--should be contained or ignored.
The idea of such a civil union makes sense to me. I often wondered if I could adopt a disabled friend so he could get access to my health care. That is an abuse of my rival edge, of course. That is the foundation of polygamy in many African societies, as well. Marrying women to support people in the community. They get sexual privileges, of course, but many women are OK with it to be associated with a rich and powerful family. I think if the sexual subjugation were not part of it the civil contract would be OK. if Angry Augustinian and I formed a business together we could demand that each get insurance and health care, etc. as part of the deal, paid for by the entity we formed. He would get a separate bedroom.
In the UK, same-sex couples have the option of either civil partnership or marriage. But opposite-sex couples can only get married.
If one partner in an opposite-sex marriage has a sex change, then the marriage is dissolved and the couple can only contract a civil partnership. If one partner in a same-sex marriage has a sex change, then their marital status is unaffected.
Equality is a strange thing in our brave new world.
"The conservatives are just as ugly in their rhetoric against Pope Francis as the progressives were toward Blessed Pope Paul VI! The two groups are birds of the same feather, just differing ideologies and disobedience, framed within the context of contempt for the person of the Holy Father. "
Hardly the case good Father, for the vast majority of us that are critics of Pope Francis it's not because we can't stand him, it's because of our love for the Church that we wish to see clarity coming from the Vicar of Christ, loose lips do sink ships....It's painful to point out the things going on during this Pontificate, really painful....
Humane Vitae was a good encyclical that was not a painful read. Laudato Si was painful to read. 246 paragraphs for what should have maybe been half of that.
Maybe a better comparison would be 1936.
Flower of Lucca,
I'm wondering how consummation of marriages, historically a legal reality, factors into all these legal developments, if at all.
"Traditional" mass is celebrated in all of the Catholic churches in our diocese. Now traditionalists have long attempted to co-opt or hijack the title "Traditional Mass," as if the mass celebrated according to the Novus Ordo was not Traditional.
This is, of course, balderdash. The NO is every bit as Traditional as the EF. It differs historically, but is 100% Traditional.
Fr. McD: I agree that this is more about the booty of Social Security and pensions and transfer of wealth than it is about "love." When this push for gay "marriage" rights started it was pretty clear to me this wasn't about wanting public support and acknowledgement for the relationships. It was about the cash.
I used to joke I needed to "marry" my brother since we're both single and we could sure use the Social Security and pension benefits (not to mention the medical coverage) of the other one should one of us die.
All of this political push is couched under civil rights, but it's about money.
There is a website out there called "Beyond Marriage" pointed out in an article I read about the issues of gay "marriage" and it's an eye opener. The whole push is to get government money for being in relationship with somebody else. Take a look at it, and look around the site. Remember, this was published almost 10 years ago.
http://beyondmarriage.org/full_statement.html
Dialogue:
Non-consummation is still grounds for annulment of a heterosexual marriage in the UK (though not in some other countries with a similar legal system, such as Australia). But the law doesn't recognize the idea of consummation, or for that matter adultery, for same-sex marriages. So if you're in a gay marriage and have a sexual relationship with someone else of the same sex, it's not adultery. But if you're in such a marriage and have sex with someone of the opposite sex, it does count as adultery.
So the good news is that rcg and AA could get married or have a civil partnership in the UK without having to consummate the relationship. The bad news is that the law is a complete mess, and there'll be all sorts of problems when these issues get tested in court.
It'll be fun seeing how the Irish deal with these problems now that they're drawing up gay marriage legislation. Maybe they'll come to realize that a marriage without the concepts of consummation or adultery isn't really a marriage at all...
"and if they keep it up the TLM will come to be viewed as the Confederate Flag of the Catholic Church--they haven't a clue what it means to be a traditional Catholic, not a clue at all."
Are you a real priest or do you just pretend to be one? Where is your respect for the Faithful? You better start looking at that plank in your own eye, padre.
I have to remember why I don't click on the link to this site. This is the reason. Comments like this from a priest.
"Then the couple presents this license to the priest or deacon witnessing the "Solemnization" of their marriage in the Church for the marriage file. Only then can the bishop, priest or deacon celebrate the Nuptial Liturgy. The clergy, in this method of requiring the civil union to be in place first, do not sign any civil license and is in no way an agent of the State when it comes to Catholic/Christian marriage which we call the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony." Father, are you serious about this? Is this referring to same sex couples? Would you give a blessing to such civil union thereby appearing to countenance it?
As regards Pope Francis' encyclical on climate change, there is no way it can be compared to Humanae Vitae which was concerned with faith and morals. Fr Longnecker on Pathos sets out that because it doesn't concern faith and morals and is addressed not just to Catholics but to the whole world and is not couched in infallible terms, while respecting the Pope's views, Catholics are not bound by it.
I agree fully with Leferbrian's post at 9.00 am. Well said. I believe that some people like the Traditional Mass for its cosmetic appearance without recognising the differences between the two Masses which are alike only in the words of consecration, although even that has been distorted in the OF of the Mass, all the prayers of the OF having been stripped of reference to sin, sacrifice, etc. The OF of the Mass in that way certainly is not traditional, the Eucharistic prayers 2, 3 and 4 which are said most often being only 50 years old and cobbled together from Jewish Taldudic bidding prayers.
I never hear the Pope referred to by anyone, other than on a few blogs. I respect the office of Pope and for that reason am dismayed how it has been pulled down by the present encumbent. The fact that he called a Synod on the family which has opened a Pandora's box, when the whole thing was already settled by St John Paul The Great calls into question his motives. Rehabilitating liberation theologians calls into question his motives. Some of his views expressed twice to an atheist which he said twice were misreported calls into question his motives. Failing to wear any red garment which signifies the Pope's willingness to die to uphold the truths of the Faith calls into question his motives. I believe the Church is in need of recognising we can do more to help the poor and that to me will be this Pope's legacy for good. But St John Paul The Great often stressed we are in an apocalyptic age, so I think that some wearing blinkers could find their lamps run out of oil if they are not careful, whereas those choosing to attend the EF Mass are like the wise virgins. The sermons of all the priests who offer the EF Mass are educating the faithful in good moral values etc, far different from the feel good sessions at the EF Mass.
Jan
I am speaking about a man and a woman at least one of whom is a Catholic and neither have impediments getting married in the Vhurch, the legal aspect which is necessary taken care of by a civil official and not the priest since he shouldn't be an agent of the state but currently is and because of this COULD be forced to marry same second partners.
I'm a conservative by instinct and a Conservative in politics, since I support the party which was first described as such by Sir Robert Peel, arguably the greatest prime minister of the nineteenth century. A majority of voters in England vote Conservative, and the recent General Election returned the party with an overall majority. Fr McDonald's Manichaean dichotomy between conservatives and progressives, with ultramontanists in the middle makes no sense in either political or religious terms.
I don't like the term Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) although it is broadly descriptive, since it leaves the door open to specious logic-choppers like Fr Kavanaugh: 'My mass (lower case) is Traditional (upper case), it's just historically different.' What I attend most Sundays would have been completely familiar to any Catholic of the second millennium and not unfamiliar to any Latin-Rite Catholic since the time of Pope Gregory the Great. It is only unfamiliar to those born in or after the seventh decade of the 20th century. It is they, not me, who need to learn some history (and much else besides).
The state will soon take over total care of children, so such institutions as marriage and family will eventually lose any legal meaning in civil law.
Thank you for the clarification, Father.
Like John Nolan I am conservative by nature and conservative by politics. That said, I vote for the man rather than the party. Whoever most strongly upholds Christian values in my electorate I will vote for if I can. There is not much to choose from Our "conservative" party has introduced gay "marriage", abortion and other liberal policies and is conservative only on monetary matters. Our green party is called "the abortion party" which is self-explanatory and aims to loosen up abortion laws here even further. The Labour Party is just marginally a little less liberal but we have been a nanny state when they were in power and the doors were thrown wide open for immigration that has effectively now changed us into an Asian country and we have had the Chinese Communist party with a float in our Christmas parade - that doesn't augur well for the future I don't think. We have one party which is middle of the road but leans more conservatively and has a conservative policy on all Christian values, upholds Christian marriage, against abortion, liberalisation of drugs etc. All except euthanasia which they haven't adopted a policy for. I vote for them as a party and they gained ground on the greens at the last election. They are of course despised by the media.
So I believe that is the way to vote because conservative parties are no longer conservative in my experience.
Jan
John - The word Traditional, when capitalized in a Catholic context, has a particular meaning. There's nothing "specious" in correcting the misuse of "Traditional."
Green vestments in Ordinary Time are traditional, but not Traditional.
Advent wreaths are traditional, but not Traditional.
Etc.
The "Traditional" mass is celebrated in every Catholic church in my diocese.
As regards the Traditional Latin Mass I think that title distinguishes it from the Ordinary Form Latin Mass but perhaps Tridentine Mass is the better name.
The following prayers to me are what separate the Tridentine Mass from the Ordinary Form. I mention some prayers found in Eucharistic Prayer 1 because they are very rarely said in the OF Mass. The following prayers said by the priest, which we follow in our missals, is what has nourished Catholics for centuries and are why I prefer the Tridentine Mass:
"Take away from us our iniquities, we beseech Thee, O Lord; that with pure minds we may be made worthy to enter into the Holy of Holies. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
We pray Thee, O Lord, by the merits of Thy saints whose relics are here, and of all the saints: that Thou would deign to pardon me all my sins. Amen.
Cleanse my heart and my lips, O almighty God, Who cleansed the lips of the prophet Isaiah with a burning coal. In Thy gracious mercy, deign so to purify me, that I may worthily proclaim Thy holy Gospel ...
Genuflection during the Creed
OFFERTORY: Receive, O Holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Thine unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, for my innumerable sins, offenses, and negligences, and for all here present; and also for all faithful Christians both living and dead, that it may profit me and them for salvation unto life everlasting. Amen.
O God, Who wonderfully formed the dignity of human nature, and more wonderfully restored it, grant us through the mystery of this water and wine, to be made participants of His divinity, Who condescended to become a partaker of our humanity, Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord, Who with Thee, lives and reigns in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, forever and ever. Amen.
We offer Thee, O Lord, the chalice of salvation, pleading Thy clemency, that it may ascend in the sight of Thy divine majesty, with a sweet fragrance, for our salvation and for that of the whole world. Amen.
In a humble spirit and a contrite heart may we be received by Thee, O Lord, and let our sacrifice be so made in Thy sight this day that it may please Thee, O Lord God. Come, O Sanctifier, almighty ...
I will wash my hands among the innocent, and I will compass Thine altar, O Lord, that I may hear the voice of praise: and tell of all Thy wondrous deeds. I have loved, O Lord, the beauty of Thy house and the place where Thy glory dwelleth. Destroy not my soul, O God, with the wicked, nor my life with men of blood. In whose hands are iniquities, their right hand is full with gifts. But I have walked in my innocence: redeem me, and have mercy on me. My foot has stood on the right path; in the churches I will bless Thee, O Lord. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
Receive, O holy Trinity, this oblation which we offer to Thee in remembrance of the Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and in honor of blessed Mary, ever virgin, blessed John the Baptist, the holy apostles Peter and Paul, and of these and of all the saints; that it may avail unto their honor and our salvation, and may they deign to intercede in heaven for us who honor their ...
CONT'D
Consecration of the wine: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL
TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH: WHICH SHALL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. As often as you shall do these things, you do them in memory of Me.
May the performance of my homage be pleasing to Thee, O holy Trinity: and grant that the Sacrifice which I, though unworthy, have offered up in the sight of Thy majesty, may be acceptable unto Thee, and may, through Thy mercy, be a propitiation for myself and all those for whom I have offered it. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
(The priest says to the communicant) May the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul unto everlasting life. Amen.
Grant, O Lord, that what we have taken with our mouth, we may receive with a pure mind; and from a temporal gift may it become to us an eternal remedy.
May Thy Body, O Lord, which I have consumed, and Thy Blood which I have drunk, cling to my vitals; and grant that no wicked stain may remain in me, whom these pure and holy mysteries ..."
In addition there are the Collects and Secret prayers, etc, and this is why the Tridentine Mass is different in more than just cosmetic ways ... and of course there is the beauty of the silence ...
Jan
If I have to choose labels (which I would rather not do), then I too am a conservative, John – politically a_British_Conservative in the Disraeli one nation tradition, and I always voted for the Conservative Party in British elections and would do so today. But no way can I support American conservatism, or rather the raving ideological imposter that passes for American conservatism today, which would make traditional American conservatives like Russell Kirk spin in their graves. By the same token, because she was beholden to ideology (which is anathema to true conservatives) and because she attacked some venerable and honorable British traditions (thereby demonstrating her non-conservative credentials), I was no fan of Margaret Thatcher, although I admired her for breaking the unjust power of the unions and for resisting the excesses of the European Union.
But being a conservative emphatically does not mean one is necessarily opposed to prudent change or reform. Those who inhabit living traditions are open to necessary and prudent change/reform. Only those who inhabit dead traditions are adamantly opposed. Thus true followers of Burke will never reject prudent change/reform. I should add that my understanding of the nature of tradition has been much influenced by the (now Thomist-Aristotelian) philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, who has famously expressed his disgust with modern politics, calling it “civil war by other means,” a sentiment and a characterization with which I agree.
As far as capitalization rules go, when one is naming a specific thing as a proper noun, grammatical rules demand that the first letter of each word of the phrase be capitalized, e.g. White House. To write the phrase "Traditional Latin Mass" with the first letter of each word capitalized is not a comment on the "T"-radition versus "t"-radition construct that some Catholics are beholden to in our times. It is surely less of an ideological statement than someone who obstinately refuses to capitalize the word "Mass."
The phrase "Traditional Latin Mass" is not a very good descriptor; however, it is a necessary one. At the outset, the "ordinary form" and "extraordinary form" monikers are to be rejected as inaccurate. There are not two "forms" of the Roman Rite. There is only one form of the Roman Rite, i.e. the Mass of St. Pius V with its historical developments, concluding with the Missal of 1962.
One could not simply call the Tridentine Mass "the Latin Mass" because the Novus Ordo could be offered in Latin and because there are other rites in the Latin Rite family of rites. Similarly, one cannot properly call the Tridentine Mass "the Traditional Mass" for the same reason. In our time, "the Traditional Mass" is an appropriate descriptor since it indicates to the reader or listener the idea being conveyed -- surely one wouldn't expect someone discussing "the Traditional Mass" to be referring to the Mozarabic Rite or the Ambrosian Rite.
At any rate, since everyone knows precisely what is meant by the phrase "Traditional Latin Mass," even those who are attempting to avoid the connotations, it seems as good a phrase as any to describe the Tridentine Mass.
God willing, one day soon there will, once again, be no need to use any adjectival descriptors besides "Mass" for the Roman Rite throughout whole Western World. Until then, since the leaders of the Church have seen fit to construct a new service out of whole cloth and call it a "mass," descriptors are necessary for differentiation.
Dr William Oddie sums up the difficulties that have arisen with the introduction of the new Mass and said that the way it was introduced was part of the hermeneutic of rupture. He mentions in this excerpt how Luther didn't immediately do away with the elevation in the Protestant information because the people would have noticed the change. I notice the change in our Mass where priests are now "showing" the host to the people rather than elevating it. That to me demonstrates the distinct change in emphasis in the new Mass on a meal - the fact that the eucharistic prayers are apparently derived from Talmudic table blessing prayers should alert the faithful that we have been to my mind "done in the eye" over the new Mass. How Fr Kavanaugh can maintain it is traditional I do not know:
"Whether one defends the Novus Ordo (as with reservations I do, even though I follow the Usus Antiquior when I can) or dismisses it, it is undoubtedly the case that its introduction brought about a huge rupture with the past which because of the way it was done was more destructive than exhilarating. As Fr Klaus Gamber tellingly recounted in his book The Reform of the Roman Rite, “…when Luther and his followers first discarded the Canon of the Mass, this change was not commonly noticed by the people because, as we know, the priest spoke the Canon in a low voice, as a private prayer. But Luther purposely did not dispense with the elevation of the Host and Chalice, at least not initially, because the people would have noticed that change. Much more radical than any liturgical changes introduced by Luther was the reorganization of our own liturgy — above all, the fundamental changes that were made in the liturgy of the Mass. It also demonstrated much less understanding for the emotional ties the faithful had to the traditional liturgical rite.” [My italics]
Paul VI’s greatest blunder was to impose the new Mass rather than phasing it in, and to suppress the old. Cardinal Ratzinger said in his introduction to Fr Gamber’s book that “instead of a liturgy which was the fruit of continuous development, a fabricated liturgy was put in its place. A living growing process was abandoned…”
The Novus Ordo hence became part of the Hermeneutic of rupture: now, because of Summorum pontificum, there is some chance that it may eventually become part of the hermeneutic of continuity: yet another benign part of Pope Benedict’s healing legacy. But it will take many years; and for countless Catholic souls the damage done can never be undone."
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2014/08/15/the-novus-ordo-despite-epii-is-an-orthodox-and-valid-mass-but-the-way-it-was-introduced-was-part-of-the-hermeneutic-of-rupture/
Jan
I might add too, for clarification, that Archbishop Leferbre accepted the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass and I believe the SSPX still does. However, the Novua Ordo Mass has deteriorated to such an extent in many places that it is possible that some of those Novus Masses Masses may be invalid. I understand that the Church teaches that, in order for the sacrament to be confected, the priest must have the intention to consecrate and must believe that the words of consecration that he says do literally transform the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, and so where you have liberal priests who do not believe such things it is possible that the Mass they offer is invalid. That is why many people these days are "roaming" Catholics, going from place to place to find either the Tridentine Mass or a Novus Ordo Mass offered according to the rubrics by a priest who is sound in theology.
Jan
Jan...June 25, 2015 at 4:40 PM..."Fr Longnecker on Pathos sets out that because it doesn't concern faith and morals and is addressed not just to Catholics but to the whole world and is not couched in infallible terms, while respecting the Pope's views, Catholics are not bound by it."
I just read an article by Father Longenecker in which he praised Laudato si as a "genius" approach by Pope Francis to evangelize the world.
As to whether Laudato si is binding upon Catholics, I note that His Holiness Pope Francis declared that Laudato si belongs to the body of Catholic Social Teaching.
Mark Thomas
As I understand it, the SSPX accepts the Novus Ordo as being presumptively valid in the abstract, but counsels against attending it because of the danger to faith that it engenders (a situation not resolved by attending a Novus Ordo offered by a "sound" priest). The Novus Ordo is to be avoided in all circumstances except necessity, such as a wedding or funeral. In those cases where one might have to attend due to necessity, one is obliged not to participate by, for example, receiving (presumptively) Communion. So, if there is not a Tridentine Mass within reasonable driving distance, the obligation to attend Mass is relieved, but one must still sanctify the Sunday or Holy Day appropriately.
This is the same quandary that the Catholics living during the advent of the Anglican schism would've been faced with -- those were presumptively valid Masses due to the validity of the priests, but they were not acceptable for attendance by Catholics. Read about the martyrs of that time, like St. Margaret Clitherow and St. Nicholas Owen, who went to extraordinary lengths to maintain the true worship in the Holy Mass.
And, by the way, Cardinal Ottaviani, just after the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae, wrote about the doubtful validity of the Novus Ordo due to certain things having to do with the Consecration and the intent of the priest attempting to offer Mass. These issues are nothing new.
Leferbrian, here is what I found on the SSPX website:
"At the time, Archbishop Lefebvre’s position was not quite as categorical. He considered that the New Mass was not heretical, but as Cardinal Ottaviani had said, it represents serious dangers; thus in the course of time, “Protestant ideas concerning the Supper would be unconsciously accepted by the Catholics.” This was why children had to be taught the fundamental notions about the Mass. However, “it is an exaggeration to say that most of these Masses are invalid.” One should not hesitate to go a little further to have Mass according to the Roman Ordo; but “if one does not have the choice and if the priest celebrating Mass according to the Novus Ordo is faithful and worthy, one should not abstain from going to Mass.”[44]"
Therefore, there is no excuse not to attend Mass if there is no Tridentine Mass available.
Jan
Mark this is what Fr Longenecker said:
Can a Good Catholic Still Be a Global Warming Skeptic?
Think about it.
Pope Francis may be teaching as supreme pastor, but he is not teaching on a subject which is a matter of faith or morals, ad he has certainly not indicated that the teaching is infallible.
In fact, when we have time to examine the encyclical more closely I think we’ll find that there is a good bit of opinion, conjecture and theoretical language in the document. Francis is not much of a dogmatic teacher, but more intuitive, tentative and suggestive.
So the simple answer is, “You can disagree with the pope about global warming and still be a good Catholic.”
Furthermore, encyclicals are sometimes addressed only to the Catholic faithful. Their teaching would be assumed to be more authoritative and binding. Pope Francis has addressed Laudato Si to all people. He is therefore not delivering teaching which is binding, and within the encyclical he speaks of the need for dialogue, discussion and growth in learning on these matters.
However, you’re not supposed to just ignore papal teaching. It is true that the faithful must listen carefully, respond with an inner disposition of obedience and submission to papal teaching and seek to conform one’s life to the teaching.
Therefore I’d conclude that you can disagree with the pope about the reality of global warming and it’s causes, but you should listen carefully to the whole of his teaching and take on what he says about the ecological crisis the world is facing. We should listen carefully to his teaching about pollution, the destruction of habitats and natural ecosystems. We should heed his warnings about the destructiveness of unlimited consumerism, the “grab and throwaway culture and the abuse of the vulnerable, poor, immigrants and disabled.
In other words, embrace the whole thing with love and a desire to learn. Pay attention to the real crisis we’re all facing and alter your lifestyle. however, if you can’t swallow the global warming caused by humans you’re allowed to still be skeptical.
Jan
Anonymous,
Thank you for sharing your reflections. However, when you say, "the following prayers said by the priest, which we follow in our missals, is what has nourished Catholics for centuries", I wonder if you realize that the usage of hand-missals was first introduced only in the Twentieth Century, but even then used only by a minority of Western Catholics.
Jan, can you post a link to where you found that at the SSPX site, please? It is contrary to what I have heard directly from their priests. Thanks.
Jan, here's what I found at the SSPX site, which matches what I've been told. I would never counsel others to avoid the Novus Ordo unless I knew them personally and had many discussions with them about the matter, as I think discernment on this topic is needed. I think, though, that once one knows the reality of the crisis and the nature of the Novus Ordo, participating in it violates the First Commandment. Anyway, here's the quote:
"If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one’s Sunday obligation. Many Catholics who do assist at it are unaware of its all pervasive degree of serious innovation and are exempt from guilt. However, any Catholic who is aware of its harm, does not have the right to participate. He could only then assist at it by a mere physical presence without positively taking part in it, and then and for major family reasons (weddings, funerals, etc)."
Lefebvrian, here is the link:
http://sspx.org/en/what-archbishop-lefebvre-said-about-new-mass
Jan, I agree that the notion that global warming is manmade is debatable.
I am uncertain as to the notion that an Encyclical addressed to "all people" is somehow non-binding upon Catholics.
Is that the teaching of the Church? When His Holiness Pope Francis addressed "all people", does that not include Catholics?
Are Encyclicals that have been addressed to Catholics and "all men of goodwill" non-binding as said Encyclicals were addressed also to non-Catholics?
I continue to compare Father Longenecker's claim that Laudato si is not binding upon Catholics to Pope Francis' declaration that Laudato si is "now added to the body of the Church’s social teaching".
Finally, I must turn to that which my bishop has declared in regard to Ladauto si, rather than that which Father Longenecker has opined in regard to Ladauto si.
My bishop has received authority from Jesus Christ to teach, govern, and sanctify the People of God within my diocese. Father Longenecker, whom I am sure is a holy and fine priest, lacks the above authority.
Mark Thomas
Dialogue, I don't know where you got your information from but this article on EWTN says differently:
"ROME, 25 MARCH 2011 (ZENIT)
The use of missals by the laity, at least on mainland Europe, extends for considerably more than two centuries, providing access to the riches of the liturgy for lay people increasingly interested in the liturgical action unfolding before them.
In countries where religious persecution was a reality, such as in Great Britain during penal times, the possession of such a book would have provided opponents of the Catholic faith with adequate evidence of adherence to "popery." It was not, in the British context, unknown in recusancy, for the texts of certain Masses as well as the ordinary of the Mass to be printed within a broader devotional manual aimed at a catechesis of the faithful.
In Italy, the influence of the Synod of Pistoia in 1786, three years prior to the French Revolution, had its effects on the Italian liturgical movement (1672-1750) begun by L.A. Muratori, which stressed the need for increased access to the texts as intrinsic to any process of liturgical reform. Between 1788 and 1792 there appeared translations into Italian of the Mass both in the Ambrosian and Roman rites with explanations given about principal feasts, which were contained within a guide to prayer for pious faithful.
Similar happenings were found in France and Germany that mushroomed when inspired by the liturgical initiatives of Dom Prosper Guéranger during the 19th century. The use of missals fostered a manifestly liturgical association with the liturgy which incorporated the literate into the intricacies of the liturgy celebrated in Latin and schooled them in liturgical prayer.
Missals often included the texts of vespers for Sundays, which became a feature of many parishes especially in France, the Netherlands and Germany. During the 20th century, missals increasingly contained with catechetical material about the liturgical year, commentaries on sacred Scripture and about eucological texts. Responding to the Liturgical Movement heralded by Pope St Pius X, the Cabrol Missal and the Missal of St André were in the forefront."
So those prayers of the Mass have indeed nourished the faithful - if people didn't understand the Mass why was there such an uproar when it was suppressed?
Jan
Thank you, Anonymous, for the link. Reading the remainder of the page there, it goes on to say that the Archbishop eventually came to the conclusion that I post f above, which is still the SSPX's conclusion.
Actually, Lefebvrian, your quote is not from an SSPX site but from the Fisheaters blog. The link to the SSPX has been taken down by the SSPX.
We have heard that rumours in the SSPX are that they will be reconciled under Pope Francis. People from the SSPX that I know - while they have a preference for the Tridentine Mass - do not say that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid.
Jan
Mark, Fr Longenecker merely lays out the requirements laid down by the Church for an encyclical to be regarded as an infallible teaching of the Church. That is basic and I suggest that you read up on infallibility. Cardinal Burke said as much about the earlier encyclical of Pope Francis - that it was non-binding on the faithful and he held the top position on Canon law so he would know what he was talking about. Many Catholics do not appear to know the difference in teaching that is binding and non-binding. So it doesn't matter what your bishop says because the encyclical simply does not meet the requirements laid down by the Church for an infallible teaching and, therefore, Pope Francis himself obviously does not intend it to be.
Jan
Jan,
What they're calling "missals" were devotional books with some readings and prayers of the Mass. "Stripping of the Altars" provides lengthy descriptions.
People did understand the Mass, because the Mass is the Sacrifice of the Cross. They participated by meditating upon Calvary. They had no need to understand the quiet prayers of the priest. The image of Catholics kneeling down at Mass reading a hand-missal is a 20th century phenomenon, initiated by Pius X, but never fully implimented.
2015 may be turning out worse than 1968---at least in 1968, there was a national reaction against the liberal excesses of the decade (under Lyndon Johnson), and we got Richard Nixon who at least (despite his admittedly flawed character) tried to put the brakes on lawlessness, out of control war protests and the like. Between 1968 and 1988, our country elected presidents (Republicans) who at least were not seeking to mold the US into some "progressive" nation. But the tides have changed---Bill Clinton could get away with vetoing a ban on partial-birth abortions, and now Hillary is in favor of same-sex marriage (even though her Methodist denomination forbids same-sex ceremonies). And we have a situation in the Electoral College that favors the Democrats because big states that used to be competitive---California, Illinois and New York--are solidly Democratic. It practically takes a miracle for a Republican to win the presidency in this age---which means Florida and Ohio, two states without which a Republican won't get elected. We have a wobbly Supreme Court which yesterday affirmed Obamacare again---thanks to a Republican appointee, John Roberts. It is hard to see how America's best days are not behind us...Pat Buchanan had some book years ago, part of the title which was "Can America Survive Until 2025?" Maybe he should have put "2020" instead....
And now the Court has legalized same-sex marriage...guess who the deciding vote was? None other than Republican appointee, and supposedly Catholic, Anthony Kennedy. I think he lives in DC, so time for Carindal Wuerl to invoke Canon 915...but I'm not holding my breath!!!!
What should Catholic judges do now? Isn't it Acts 5:29 which says "better for us to obey God than man?"
Father, while I hate to go back to the secession/states rights/Confederate flag debate, do you think (if a separate nation) the South ever would have legalized same-sex marriage and abortion on demand? Now we are seeing the fruits of the Northern victory--and they taste pretty bitter!
Jan, my quote came directly from the SSPX archives... Still part of their website...
The SSPX has more than a "preference" for the Tridentine Mass. "Preferences" are rather meaningless.
Jan, I misread your previous post to me. My apologies.
Anonymous @ 11:22…no, the South would never have legalized gay marriage…and blacks would not be rioting and burning cities, either….well, they might get started but only for a little while before Forrest and Mosby arrived.
Dialogue, Zenit has this article about missalettes, and I have also read that it is known that some individual lay people in owned missals because they were left in their wills. If the Mass was translated into Italian in 1788 and 1792 then obviously it was translated for the benefit of the laity as the priests were all taught Latin and it wasn't necessary for them to have a translation in the vernacular.
"The Use of Missals and Missalettes During Mass
Printed Aides Could Make a Comeback With New Liturgy Translation
ROME, MARCH 25, 2011 (Zenit.org).- The use of missals by the laity, at least on mainland Europe, extends for considerably more than two centuries, providing access to the riches of the liturgy for lay people increasingly interested in the liturgical action unfolding before them.
In countries where religious persecution was a reality, such as in Great Britain during penal times, the possession of such a book would have provided opponents of the Catholic faith with adequate evidence of adherence to "popery." It was not, in the British context, unknown in recusancy, for the texts of certain Masses as well as the ordinary of the Mass to be printed within a broader devotional manual aimed at a catechesis of the faithful.
In Italy, the influence of the Synod of Pistoia in 1786, three years prior to the French Revolution, had its effects on the Italian liturgical movement (1672-1750) begun by L.A. Muratori, which stressed the need for increased access to the texts as intrinsic to any process of liturgical reform. Between 1788 and 1792 there appeared translations into Italian of the Mass both in the Ambrosian and Roman rites with explanations given about principal feasts, which were contained within a guide to prayer for pious faithful.
Similar happenings were found in France and Germany that mushroomed when inspired by the liturgical initiatives of Dom Prosper Guéranger during the 19th century. The use of missals fostered a manifestly liturgical association with the liturgy which incorporated the literate into the intricacies of the liturgy celebrated in Latin and schooled them in liturgical prayer.
Missals often included the texts of vespers for Sundays, which became a feature of many parishes especially in France, the Netherlands and Germany. During the 20th century, missals increasingly contained with catechetical material about the liturgical year, commentaries on sacred Scripture and about eucological texts. Responding to the Liturgical Movement heralded by Pope St Pius X, the Cabrol Missal and the Missal of St André were in the forefront."
In case you have forgotten we are in the 21st century. It says here clearly that the use of missals mushroomed in the 19th century. So the laity have indeed been fed by these beautiful prayers for more than two centuries and, let's not forget, many of them would have understood the prayers that were read aloud because of frequent attendance at the Latin Mass.
I myself understand the Latin of many of the prayers in the Tridentine Mass without need of the missal.
Jan
Lefebvian - from the same SSPX site:
"D. This being so, can it be said that the Novus Ordo Missae is invalid?
This does not necessarily follow from the above defects, as serious as they might be, for only three things are required for validity (presupposing a validly ordained priest), proper:
matter,
form,
and intention.
However, the celebrant must intend to do what the Church does. The Novus Ordo Missae will no longer in and of itself guarantee that the celebrant has this intention. That will depend on his personal faith (generally unknown to those assisting, but more and more doubtful as the crisis in the Church is prolonged)."
Therefore, by the SSPX's own admission, the Novus Ordo Mass is valid if it has "matter, form and intention" and, therefore, if a Tridentine Mass is not available within I think they say 2 hours' drive, as AB Lefebvre said, people should find a sound priest who celebrates the Novus Ordo Mass according to the rubrics and attend that. The SSPX does not have power to suspend the need to attend Sunday Mass in pain of mortal sin if people can find a Novus Ordo Mass that satisfies the criteria they themselves outline.
Jan
Lefebvrian
Regarding your comments on the Anglican schism:
After the Act of Uniformity of 1559 which reimposed the 1552 Prayer Book (with some revisions) the priest, even if his Orders were valid, did not celebrate the Catholic Mass. Catholics and Protestants alike were quite aware of this, and in the early part of Elizabeth's reign the only Mass available to Catholics would be one celebrated illegally by a 'massing-priest' left over from the reign of Mary Tudor.
After the Henrician 'schism' the liturgical and doctrinal changes in the remainder of his reign were not sufficient to invalidate the Mass itself. St Thomas More did not accept that the English Church was schismatic since he maintained that neither king nor parliament had the authority to make it so.
Jan, I never said that the SSPX didn't think the Novus Ordo to be valid. There is more to consider about attending Mass than mere validity. The fact that the Novus Ordo might be valid makes the sacrilege found at most of them all the worse. A valid Novus Ordo service is still a danger to one's faith. If you believe that you should attend it, then that is your conclusion. As I said, I would not presume to attempt to convince you otherwise.
Interesting, John. Thank you.
What a terrible time that must have been for Catholics in England. Over here we know very little about all the martyrs from that period. My wife found a nice YouTube clip of some processions in York celebrating the martyrs. I was surprised there were so many and that I was unaware of their existence.
Lefebvrian, I have to travel over two hours to get to a Sunday Tridentine Mass and because I cannot make the trip every Sunday then I have no choice but to go to a Novus Ordo Mass because the Church is clear that we must attend Sunday Mass on pain of mortal sin. If the SSPX are part of the Church, as they claim to be, then they cannot excuse you from your obligation to attend Mass on Sunday. On the other hand, if the SSPX have set up their own magisterium they will no doubt make such decisions in accordance with their own church policy. But they can't have it both ways.
Jan
When the Arians took over nearly all the churches, could one meet their Mass obligation by going to an Arian liturgy?
Post a Comment