Saturday, May 19, 2018

JUST HOW MUCH DOES THE REVISION OF THE SACRAMENTS, THE ECCLESIOLOGY OF THE CHURCH AND THE POST VATICAN II CHURCH'S EMPASIS ON SOCIAL WORK AND THE CHURCH BEING LIKE AN NGO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SELF-REFERENTIAL CHURCH THAT POPE FRANCIS CONDEMNS TIME AND TIME AGAIN, MAKING AN IDOL (IDOLATRY) OUT OF ECCLESIOLOGY AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD?????

Fr. Anthony Ruff OSB of Praytell should have said that the pre-Vatican II liturgy is priestly and those within the sanctuary offer Mass in an ordained priestly fashion, be they altar boys who point to seminarians and the orders of porter,lector and acolyte not to mention sub deacon, deacon, priest and bishop. THIS IS CLERICAL, BUT IT ISN'T CLERICALISM!

The post-Vatican II Mass and the idolatry of the so-called post Vatican II ecclesiology which places man at the center, not God is true "clericalism and laityism." And priests prancing about the Liturgy as though celebrities promoting the cult of the personality, isn't clerical IT IS CLERICALISM!  


Please note where the celebrant's chair is in both of these post-Vatican II churches--which promotes clericalism on steroids when the priest's chair is at the highest pinnacle of a church. There is an elitist psychology at work here contributing to Christ's altar being dethroned and the priest placed on a physical pedestal:



In condemning the Chilean bishops, Pope Francis' prophetic words have a special resonance with those who believe the post-Vatican II Church is by its very nature, a self-referential Church in rupture with the Church prior to Vatican II which placed God at the center of all her works, especially the Sacraments, not man:

(Pope Francis) blamed in part a fractured seminary process, including the allowance of men with history of active homosexuality, but also stressed the need to recognize the underlying causes. He denounced himself but also held the entire Chilean episcopate responsible, too, saying no one could be exempted. 

The Pope noted a “loss of prophetic strength,” called on the Chilean Church to again put Christ at the center, not itself, and warned against an “elite psychology,” clericalism and “messianism.” Prayer and sincere recognition of failings is necessary for grace to work, he added.

My comments:

All the post Vatican II spirit of Vatican II turmoil, all the desire for the new and novel, all the iconoclasm of our churches and sacraments to reorient all toward each other and to make the congregation the center and not Christ the center can be said to have contributed to the unprecedented decline and fall of the Catholic Church throughout the world. The lack of Godly leadership by bishops and priests is at the foundation of this decline and fall.

Think of the corruption of the post-Vatican II Mass with the priest facing the congregation as though an entertainer or celebrity, his own personality in terms of warmth and demeanor, his own creativity, his own particular cult and the congregation turned in on itself as though as in a circle of kumbaya hand holding adherents to each other and not the true Godhead hasn't all this contributed to what Pope Francis properly diagnosis as Christ no longer the center of our sacraments, we are!!!!!

Ad orientem can once again place Christ at the center and solve so many of the problems of post-Vatican II clericalism on steroids!!!!!

The Mass as celebrated by so many priests in the Ordinary Form facing the people with the priest at the center and the people at the center too, leads to an "elite psychology, clericalism and messianism."

And when Fr. Anthony Ruff pontificates on the "People of God" ecclesiology of Vatican II in contrast and in rupture with the pre-Vatican II Church and I quote:

 On the one hand, there is our checkered history of 1000+ years of highly clericalized liturgy which was hardly an act of the entire people of God. A traditional distortion this deeply rooted is not turned around overnight. (And readmitting the celebration of the unreformed “Tridentine” liturgy which does not reflect the ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council tends to impede us from the necessary work of figuring out how to celebrate the reformed rites more adequately.)

Then Fr. Ruff is the problem not the pre-Vatican II Mass with its contrasting ecclesiology which in fact places Christ at the center of the Church's ecclesiology not man!


My Final comments:

Fr. Ruff should have said that the pre-Vatican II liturgy is priestly and those within the sanctuary offer Mass in an ordained priestly fashion, be they altar boys who point to seminarians and the orders of porter,lector and acoyltye not to mention sub deacon, deacon, priest and bishop. THIS IS CLERICAL, BUT IT ISN'T CLERICALISM!

The post-Vatican II Mass and the idolatry of the so-called post Vatican II ecclesiology which places man at the center, not God is true "clericalism and laityism." And priests prancing about the Liturgy as though celebrities promoting the cult of the personality, isn't clerical IT IS CLERICALISM! 

16 comments:

TJM said...

Father Ruff should be ignored. He's part of the problem, not the solution

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

"... can be said to have contributed to the unprecedented decline and fall of the Catholic Church throughout the world."

Yes, it "can be said," but it may well not be true.

"The Mass as celebrated by so many priests in the Ordinary Form facing the people with the priest at the center and the people at the center too, leads to an "elite psychology, clericalism and messianism."

As if elitism, clericalism, and messianism never existed before Vatican II.

"People of God" theology is really the theology of Communion. As then Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out, this way of understanding (not idolizing) Catholic ecclesiology reaches back to St. Paul and the Church Fathers. Ratzinger praised Henri du Lubac's work in this regard. It found its fullest expression in the understanding of the Church as the People of God - a communion of believers centered on the Eucharist.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Indeed prior to VII in the Jesuits and after VII in the Jesuits but on steroids given the control clerics have on making the Mass in their own image as well as the Vhirch.

TJM said...

Except the rubrics of the EF put controls on the priest, the rubrics (or lack thereof) although the priest of the OF twist the liturgy to be anything Father All About Me wants it to be. I’ve seen first class jerks who have utterly ruined Sunday Mass, something that really wasn’t possible with the EF. To truly reform the OF mandatory rubrics are in order

Jake said...

'The People of God' is the title of an influential book by Abbot Vonier of Buckfast, published, if I am not mistaken, in 1937. A growing body of French scholarship now seeks to locate Vatican II in the pontificate of Pius XI, for example, 'Le Christ dans l'histoire selon le pape Pie XI' by Marie-Thérèse Desouche.

However, both the churches depicted in this post were designed before Vatican II and consecrated - Collegeville (1953/4? cons. 1961) and Liverpool (1960, cons. 1967) - using the pre-conciliar pontifical!

Is the relationship between throne and altar in these photos really that different from the Romanesque basilica of Sant'Ambrogio in Milan (See http://www.chiesadimilano.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/1.101222.jpg )?

Victor said...

Fr Ruff's accusation of clericalism in the old rite is the same one made early by the modernist liturgical movement (LM), namely, that the clergy in the sanctuary did everything, while the people were detached silent spectators, to paraphrase Pius XI. Yes, even Pius XI was influenced by the cunning arguments of the LM, but at least for him the issue was disciplinary, and meant merely that people should do some antiphonal singing with the choir for the Ordinary when possible. Couple to this the idea of the priesthood of all believers and you have the people offering the same Sacrifice at the altar as the ordained priest who becomes a mere Presider, that is to say, active participation of the people. The ordained priest becomes a mere Presider in the Sacrifice. Sounds very Protestant, does it not?

Alarm bells should have sounded in the Church when arguments were being put forth, mostly by the LM, before, during, and after the Council that the liturgy for the previous 1,500 years had been all wrong, that a new one was needed for a "modern man." One wonders if this new modern man was so different from the old man that Christ came to save only the old man while the new liturgy was really meant to save the modern man thereafter.

Further alarm bells should have sounded when catch phrases like "People of God" developed by the neo-modernist Nouvelle Theologie became the basis for a new ecclesiology. The phrase itself is not new, and we find a few instances of it in the Old Testament. But developing an whole ecclesiology with it that effectively disregarded the older views of the Church through a passionate exaggeration shows that the aim was to form a New Church for Modern Man.

This is what happens when you let the detached elite, those ivory tower "experts", take over the Church, that is, the people become alienated.

the egyptian said...

still fondly remember the good old days of my youth, I'm 59 years old , barely remember the old mass, however for all the years I served mass, from 2nd grade till he tragically passed away in a traffic accident 7 years later, Our saintly priest Fr Stock, sat at his Sedilia, with a server at each side, basically hidden behind the arch of the sanctuary, the mass was definitely NOT about him. Contrast with a parish I attended on vacation, pastored by a Jesuit of course, he sat in front of the old high altar, the tabernacle door long since sealed over with stone, the altar shelf cut off flush, his seat built high enough that his head hid the opening, I guess that you could say he was a high priest, and yes the way he said mass it WAS all about him, one of the loopiest masses I ever attended

TJM said...

Yes, the LM really brought people back to the pews in France - LOL. I read that 1 out of 4 new ordinands in France celebrate the EF exclusively.

Anonymous said...

Those illustrations of churches are architectural goofiness.

The reference to the Church as a NGO is wrong. It is becoming more of a QGO (Quasi Governmental Organization). Government has a strong influence on the Church in that it is often government financial aid the Church is distributing, with conditions attached. Government also influence what is taught in Catholic (and all) Schools. Government is also motivated in replacing Church morals, ethics, and reasoning with its own ideology. As Government influence grows, Church influence shrinks. There is no clericalism today.Today the priest is barely noticeable at the Mass. Priests are challenged by the lay ministers opening speech. They are intercepted by by the readers. Priests are drowned out by the musicians, and obliterated by the extraordinary ministers. The direction the Priest faces isn't really the biggest problem, the problem is that there are too many people entering the sanctuary who do not belong there. It seems like all those folks up there are politely kicking the priest out.

Anonymous said...

I sometimes comment at PrayTell, but not as much lately. I may have misread him, but it seems Fr Ruff is okay with downplaying aspects of Catholic teaching about the Mass and Eucharist for ecumenical purposes. We are instead to focus on what broadly unites us with intercommunion being the probable/ideal outcome. However, attending the EF is totally unacceptable and allowing the EF is a "pastoral disaster" as far as he is concerned because the Mass does not strictly conform to Vatican II.

Put another way - belief in transubstantiation and the Mass as propitiatory sacrifice can be sidelined in order to look at the "big picture," while adherence to the liturgical reform is of far greater importance and a non-negotiable aspect of Catholicism.

Jack Wayne

Anonymous said...

“self-referential” says it all, yes?
We as persons, as a nation, and as a church, consistently focus on self; I.e. what do I want/need?
Can there be a meeting ground where we are willing to forgo self? If not, can I possibly see another’s need as more important than mine? I can’t help but think in that question somewhere lies an answer...


John Nolan said...

In the picture of Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral the bishop's throne looks like an armchair. I understand that the present Archbishop, Malcolm MacMahon OP, has replaced it with something more dignified.

Gibberd's design dates from 1959. It was, and is, controversial, and has been plagued by structural problems which resulted in the Archdiocese suing the architect. However, taken on its own terms, the interior is quite impressive, and I don't strongly object to it.

One advantage of these 'churches in the round' is that the priest has to have his back to someone!

TJM said...

John Nolan,

Perhaps the Altar could be put on a moveable platform that continuously turns so that everyone gets a chance to experience ad orientem worship!!

Anonymous 2 said...

Anonymous at 12:46 p.m.:

I think you are right. And isn’t one possible answer “reasonable liturgical pluralism”? Indeed, isn’t “reasonable pluralism” (not to be confused with relativism, which is quite different) the answer to most things that challenge a diverse society (ecclesial or secular)? The difficulty, of course, lies in determining what is “reasonable.” And again, we are not talking about relativism because allowing “reasonable pluralism” does not exclude a comparative evaluation of different “reasonable” plural solutions or approaches.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 2:
I would like to hear more about “reasonable liturgical pluralism” as I am not familiar with what that might mean. If you would, please elaborate. I do agree that relativism is a pervasive, omnipresent evil in modern times. How do we circumvent that evil while trying to live for the good of the other instead of self?

Thank you,
Anonymous 12:46

Henry said...

Perhaps an example of “reasonable liturgical pluralism” is provided by the luxuriant richness of the multiple variants of the Latin rite (e.g. the Sarum rite) that appeared throughout Europe in the final centuries of the high middle ages—before Pius V imposed on the whole Latin patriarchate the “noble simplicity” of the Roman missal that had then been in use for several centuries in Rome itself. (Thus, contrary to claims sometimes heard, the Tridentine reform did not involve any committee cutting and pasting away, fabricating a new missal, like the one of the 1960s.)

According to Fortescue, almost every diocese had some liturgical variations of its own. However, all these were “dialects” of the Roman rite, rather than really different rites. According to Gamber, the variations between these different medieval usages were principally in ”those parts of the order of Mass said in a low voice by the celebrant . . . On the other hand, the sung texts were almost everywhere the same within the Latin Church.”

Thus, a medieval traveler could attend Mass in different European countries and not see or hear any really perceptible differences in the liturgies. In contrast to the Novus Ordo tower of liturgical babel today, when the Masses offered in different parishes only a few miles apart can look and feel like the services of quite different religions.