I am really embarrassed by priests and bishops my age and older when they make themselves into a caricature of aging baby boomer spirit of Vatican II clergy who have the virus of fear that leads to pre-Vatican II everything-phobia.
Read this from CNA:
Neither universal canon nor liturgical law require the permission of a bishop before a priest celebrates the Mass ad orientem.
The ad orientem celebration of the Mass fell out of customary use in many parts of the world after 1969-1970 revisions to the Roman Missal, although those revisions did not explicitly call for a change in liturgical orientation. The possibility of the versus populum, or facing the people posture was mentioned in a 1964 Vatican instruction regarding the placement of altars. In recent years, some Vatican officials and U.S. bishops have promoted and encouraged a return to the ad orientem posture.
Christensen’s letter said that in his diocese, the ad orientem orientation would be prohibited. He explained that “it was clearly the mind of the Council that the priest should face the people.”
Deacon Gene Fadness, a spokesman for the Diocese of Boise did not explain what document of the Second Vatican Council conveys the “mind of the Council” on the matter, which is not mentioned in Sacrosanctum concilium, the Second Vatican Council’s constitution on the liturgy.
Christensen, 67, has been Bishop (Pete) of Boise since 2014.
The letter was sent to priests in February, but published at the end of March, after the public celebration of Mass had been suspended across the U.S. because of the coronavirus pandemic.
Asked about the timing of the letter’s publication, Fadness explained that the diocesan newspaper “publishes only twice monthly.”
“The Bishop is merely asking that the Ordinary Form be followed during a Novus Ordo Mass and the Extraordinary Form be followed during the Traditional Latin Mass,” Fadness explained.
“Some of our priests were mixing Extraordinary Form practices with the Ordinary Form, which was causing confusion among the faithful, some fearing that we were introducing pre-Vatican II practices.”
My comment on the last paragraph: What survey did the good deacon use or cite that showed the ignorant laity were confused and suffer from a pathology of phobia concerning the reintroduction of pre-Vatican II practices?????
Is this deacon and diocese to be taken seriously???????????
23 comments:
What's so wrong about pre-Vatican II practices? You are, after all, referring to everything practised by the Church prior to 1965.
The "mind of the council" is that expressed by nearly all of the bishops who participated, as well as the "pope" who presided over it. With very limited exceptions, all of them offered the Novus Ordo service as "Bishop" Pete is directing.
It seems far more outrageous to me to suggest that all of the bishops, as well as the "pope," got their own council wrong. In other words, they did what they said they were going to do, and their progeny are sticking with it.
This "bishop" is an ignoramus and has no business running any diocese. His "education" in the Faith is seriously deficient and he is a danger to souls. If I were a priest there, I would either defy him, or move to another diocese where I would not be hassled for being a Catholic priest. This "bishop" may soon find that younger priests will not want to locate there and then what will he do?
It is/was a favourite tactic of Modernists to deceptively attribute their thinking to authoritative sources. The liturgical movement, particularly in the 1940-50s, attributed many of their radical proposals to the teachings of St Pius X. After the Council they did the same with Sacrosanctum Concilium. The problem is that these proposals could never be found in or justified by these sources.
"Bishop" Pete knows his Faith perfectly well, TJM.
But his faith is not Catholicism.
Too bad there is not a way to get this picture of Pope Francis celebrating the OF ad orientem to "Bishop" Pete so he can admonish him for not following the mind of Vatican II
Marc is correct. Sacrosanctum Concilium was in fact a blueprint for radical reform, and progressive 'liturgists' such as Rita Ferrone have no hesitation in interpreting it as such. Traditionalists overemphasize its conservative elements which are in fact window-dressing designed to make it more palatable. Paul VI wasted no time in appointing a Consilium to implement the reform and took a close interest in its work.
The idea that liturgists somehow perverted SC and pursued their own agenda is not tenable - they were the ones who drafted the document in the first place.
Marc,
Legitimate point. Probably half the US bishops are not Catholic in any meaningful sense of the word
That's a generous estimate, TJM. For example, I wouldn't trust anyone in the American hierarchy to educate my children in the faith. Not a single one.
“Some of our priests were mixing Extraordinary Form practices with the Ordinary Form, which was causing confusion among the faithful, some fearing that we were introducing pre-Vatican II practices.”
Of course, we daresn't consider catechesis where re-enchantment is being employed. Why are only some of the faithfuls concerns ever considered when these opportunities for engagement and learning would likely address. Are we worried about losing their contribution envelopes?
Marc - And that mistrust springs 100% from within you, not from anything anyone in the American hierarchy has done or not done.
100% within me?
Have you forgotten about all the child rapists among the members of the hierarchy and the other child rapists among their clergy that the hierarchy was aware of and said nothing about?
Marc,
Anonymous is probably a pal of "Cardinal" McCarrick
"Marc - And that mistrust springs 100% from within you, not from anything anyone in the American hierarchy has done or not done."
Mr. McCarrick and minion Msgr. Rossi, Bishop Malone, Bishop Bransfield, +Cardinal Law, Cardinal Mahoney???
Have you forgotten about the child rapists among lawyers? Or among bankers? Or among retail clothing store clerks? Or among the convenience store workers?
Or maybe on the black where you live, or around the corner?
100% from you.
Again the fear factor of pre-Vatican II practices, what do these priests and bishops fear? I have always contended that those Catholics who never were exposed to the TLM would fall in love with it!! That is what the fear is but the big question why would these prelates and priests fear that?? You would think filling the pews would be a wonderful thing yet the fear and yes the hatred of the TLM and pre-Vatican II practices is what triggers them and again I ask why?? Please anyone out there answer my simple question.
Anonymous K,
We get it, you are part of McCarrick's "team" so you are very sensitive.
TJM
Anonymous's logic can be summarized thusly. Anyone who makes a point, or reaches a conclusion with which he (Anonymous) disagrees, is airing a subjective and uniquely personal viewpoint not shared by anyone else. Hence his jibe of '100% from you' directed at Marc, and his preposterous assertion that the shortcomings of the 1970 lectionary exist only in the imagination of a certain JP Nolan, Esquire.
In contrast, his own opinions, conclusions and prejudices are so self-evident as to admit of no contradiction, to the extent that they are paraded as facts. Also, he will shirk answering a question if to do so might undermine his position. We had an example of this recently when he would not confirm or deny whether the reading for the Monday of the fifth week of Lent (Susanna and the Elders) could be shortened ad libitum.
I was able to resolve this by watching two previously live-streamed English Masses. The first, from the Oxford Oratory, had the reading in full (no surprises there). In the second, from Richmond Hill GA, this lengthy reading was drastically truncated. And if it happens there, it is a fair bet that it happens in most places.
John Nolan,
You make excellent points. I suspect Anonymous K is just a bitter, frustrated liberal because many of us do not recognize his brilliance or agree with his notions. He really should be focused on ministering to his flock, rather than posting here.
All the best and stay healthy!
"Anonymous's logic can be summarized thusly. Anyone who makes a point, or reaches a conclusion with which he (Anonymous) disagrees, is airing a subjective and uniquely personal viewpoint not shared by anyone else. Hence his jibe of '100% from you' directed at Marc, and his preposterous assertion that the shortcomings of the 1970 lectionary exist only in the imagination of a certain JP Nolan, Esquire."
Your opinion, John, about music, Western Culture, the quality of the NO lectionary, etc., are your opinions. They may be shared by others, but they remain opinions. Your opinions are not objective facts, as much as you might want to think they are.
I fully admit I have preferences and opinions. Unlike you, I don't try to hide them by bullying others by calling them "berks" or "philistines" if they do not share my opinions. You do.
That a shorter version of the reading from the Book of Daniel in the NO lectionary is an option does not undermine my position. You questioned whether it was there at all. My position is, "It is there." Only then did you decide, after much harumphing I am sure, to find another way to make the "wrethched tome" look bad.
And that you have the most eminent and erudite TJM as your foremost cheerleader speaks, as they say, volumes.
Anonymous
If that's the best you can do, I suggest you give up while you're still behind.
John - Only in your mind and, of course, your Number One cheerleader TJM's mind, am I behind.
But if that fantasy gives you comfort, then by al means enjoy it.
Anonymous, in the wake of your inane (and profoundly ignorant) comment at 6:06 pm on 5 April I didn't see anyone rushing to support you, quite the opposite in fact. Do us all a favour and crawl back into the hole you have dug for yourself. You're not even funny any more.
Post a Comment