This is a comment Fr. Fox made on another post:
-
I will point out, yet again, that most people do not like the Missal of 1970, especially those who claim to be it's ardent supporters. Witness how many self-described "Vatican II" priests (note: I am a Vatican II priest, but they would shudder at the thought, as well as my cassock) cannot abide the Mass of Paul VI as it is, but rather must tinker, adapt, adjust, omit and re-arrange? The prayers aren't right, so they have to be re-arranged; the Gloria cannot stand alone, they must overlay it with a sprinkling rite. The proper antiphons prompt a reaction akin to garlic for a vampire. Using Latin texts for the ordinary parts, as called for by (a) Vatican II, (b) Pope St. Paul VI, (c) Pope St. John Paul II, (d) the U.S. bishops? UNTHINKABLE! Instead, let's "improve" the 1970 Missal with processions of athletic trophies arranged before that table up there -- what's that for? (i.e., the altar of sacrifice), let's take the tablecloth and candles off the table and have the kids dress it at a certain point, and let's have the sign of peace be "improved" by handing out roses or whatever... Oh, and let's have people stand around that table, that'll really make it work better, too...
There aren't many who actually like the 1970 Missal as it is. Oh, some exist, but not many.
26 comments:
"And no one seems to care but bloggers......."
It is unfortunate that you think that those who do not share your analysis of the problems that face us or who do not agree with the solutions you propose "don't care." We do.
Well PF and most bishops don’t care - that is obvious. They would rather spend their energy attacking EF attendees who actually believe in the Real Presence then address the source of the unbelief - themselves and the form of the Roman Rite they selfishly prefer.
Father:
Thanks for the boost, but PLEASE! I am Father MARTIN Fox, not that heretic! Please!
Father Fox, LOL!!!
OH MY! Fr. Matthew Fox is no more, correct? In my 1970's seminary, our spirituality professor used him a great deal What a crock he was! I must have Matthew Fox of the brain! It is repaired.
Fr. McDonald
The liturgy reflects the faith of the liturgy makers. "Lex orandi lex credendi' but also lex credendi lex orandi." The faith has been altered and that is why the liturgy is so out of sync with authentic Catholic spirituality. Unfortunately, if I am right, no amount of tinkering with the NO can lead one to a authentic God centered liturgy. I do not think I am saying anything our bishops, priests and theologians do not already know. They have settled for an authentic expression of an in authentic Catholic faith. The Vatican synod documents did not cause the deformations. The documents came from the faith of the council Fathers or more precisely from faith of the movers and shakers of the synod. This is very likely the case. There were several thousands bishops there but the will of the Western European deputations and their rebellious theologians carried the day from the get go. Remember, the carefully prepared synod Intrumentum laboris (sp.) was discarded, and our liberal revolutionists were never going to be stopped. The promised New Spring-time never came, it was stillborn.
Today, we are witnessing a dying Church in Europe and also in the Americas. The Remnant have retreated to Sunday afternoon TLMs. There is new life there. In a 100 years or so when the Catholic Church is very small no one will mind if they reform the 1962 Missal. The Pope of the time might be able to call to Rome all Catholic believers from everywhere as their numbers might comfortably fit in St Peter's basilica, the only functioning worship space in the city. Then filled with Christian Catholic hope the New Springtime of the Church might actually commence.
I think Father K is right. I believe there is a percentage of people in the pews who care and they get angry when real improvements to the sanctuary are done. They go running to the bishops and rat on the good priests who find the tabernacle hiding somewhere and have the audacity to place it back in its rightful home. Those priests are one step closer to getting the Father Altman treatment (celibacy with no ministry)
But Father McDonald is more correct that there is another larger group that is probably apathetic but maybe through instruction they can be helped to understand that traditional sanctuary arrangements aren't based on mythology but wisdom and some common sense. Removing Christ as the fulcrum in the Church has no common sense. Hiding the tabernacle is likely the most serious malfeasance performed that helped to undermine the belief in the Real Presence. People at this point have to be taught that we don't genuflect to the crucifix but the tabernacle, or rather to the One who occupies it. Then comes the Communion Railing. If you put yourself on your knees you're more likely to understand that something important is happening. For those that don't like to kneel, they might suffer from dangerous pride or some serious void in their faith. They have one foot out the door and will either end up at the Community Church down the road where they can get a coffee or sleeping in on Sundays. Not much can be done for them.
Father K still has not addressed the serious flaw with the OF - why only 30 percent of its attendees believe in the Real Presence. Or is this a feature not a bug to him?
Fundamentally, this sanctuary is nice, it just needs to be developed and finished. A contrasting stone reredos would add much and create a focal point. An altar rail would be a challenge in this configuration however, I suppose one could be incorporated somehow without looking like an afterthought. I prefer the sedalia to be on the side however, I gather I'm greatly in the minority there. There is sufficient room on those flanks to add statues following a traditional arrangement. The stone wall is busy, so less is likely more in this particular church.
The maturation process has led me to try to be as fair and reasonable as possible. Fr. MJK is not wrong when stating the following:
Blogger Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...
"And no one seems to care but bloggers......."
It is unfortunate that you think that those who do not share your analysis of the problems that face us or who do not agree with the solutions you propose "don't care." We do.
The challenge is getting two very valid schools of thought to find the middle ground.
"But the greatest problem with the Ordinary Form is that so many of those who are faithful to it don't really believe what the Church teaches about the Real Presence or the purpose of the Mass as a glorified experience of the One Sacrifice of Christ in an 'unbloody way.'"
Agreed.
However, I have noticed something for years that has troubled me, but no one else seems to notice or even care. Maybe I'm being a nitpicker. But it has to do with the way we TALK about the Mass.
Even when discussing the TLM, I hear phrases like, "The bishop will not allow him to CELEBRATE the Traditional Mass."
I think it's time to scrap "celebrating" Mass and go back to "offering" Mass. After all, the Mass IS a sacrifice. If we want people to believe that it's a sacrifice, then we should use language that conveys that meaning. Abraham didn't almost "celebrate" his son Isaac on the altar, he was bout to OFFER HIS SON as a sacrifice.
Most Preconciliar texts and prayerbooks talk about priests offering Mass. Leave the celebrating to the homosexual clergy dancing down the aisle with their balloons and cupcakes. Real priests OFFER Mass.
Actually, they offer HOLY Mass. We don't hear enough of THAT anymore either.
"Leave the celebrating to the homosexual clergy dancing down the aisle with their balloons and cupcakes. Real priests OFFER Mass."
Comments like this are ANOTHER reason why so many, many priests want nothing to do with the crowd that wants a "traditional" liturgy.
Thomas Garrett,
I am old enough to remember the phrase “saying Mass.”
Frmjk, the scandals in the clergy both bishops and priests have led to the crassness you describe, but the problem isn't the crassness but the scandal the clergy have given to the laity. That we have any practicing Catholics left after all of this is a miracle of God.
If that offends the ears of some priests, Father Kavanaugh, so be it. Like it or, there are a large number of Catholics who are sick and fatigued of watching effeminate men spreading their un-masculinity around in Church setting the example of what we DON"T want to see in our priests and making us reluctant to send our sons to the seminary.
I know this was a problem in the pre-conciliar Church and I am familiar with the whole "Daughters of Trent" phenomenon, but it was NOTHING like the scale of wimpy, sodomistic priests we're stuck with today.
Again, I'm not talking about you or Father McDonald. But enough is enough.
Fr. ALLAN McDonald - The bad behavior of one person is not the cause of bad behavior in another. That's "The devil made me do it" excuse. TG makes abusive, baseless comments because he, TG, decides to do so, not becuase he has been "scandalized."
Father K,
You need to re-read some of YOUR comments, containing baseless comments like President Trump being religious is a sham, when YOUR figurehead clearly is a sham Catholic. At least President Trump did not start any hot wars during his term in office and the Mideast was at relative peace.
Thomas,
I'm interested in your comments about terminology and until I read your observation, I thought the term "to celebrate" was a respectful description of what happens at the Mass. I still do, but you created some doubt. I understand the Mass to have a joyous element but because it is an unbloody sacrifice of Christ it has a sorrowful aspect to it too. The unbloody new sacrifice is something that I don’t understand because it seems to contradict Sts. Paul's and Peter’s words that Christ died once. Leaving that aside for now, I think you’re saying that there may have been a progression in the modernization of terminology that started with eschewing Offering in favor of Celebration then moving to the absurd term Gathering. I fully reject the Gathering term, but I don't know that can be said for Celebration. Was the priest not referred to as "celebrant" pre-VII? If he was celebrant then to call the Mass a Celebration makes sense.
But we of course should reject the term "presider". The post VII crowd wanted to make the priest the center of the Mass, but then they use a term like presider which is a completely passive term that undermines their supposed desire to spotlight the priest. It makes no sense, but for liberals that’s par for the course. I think the term celebration has some practical appeal too. It helps to recognize the joyous aspects of Christ’s sacrifice and helps to prevent Catholics/Traditionalists from being attacked as somber sorrowful addicts incapable of joyful existence. Maybe it can help people look at the Mass as more than just fulfilling an obligation, but creating a desire to be a part of it. Is it possible that the exclusive use of Offering keeps you stuck in the Old Testament? The Passover meal as directed by God has little joy to it whereas the New Passover of Christ is the new rite that is both death and resurrection? Hope I’ve made some sense.
The following is offensive, unfair, juvenile, tactless:
Thomas Garrett @ 3:06 p.m.: "I know this was a problem in the pre-conciliar Church and I am familiar with the whole "Daughters of Trent" phenomenon, but it was NOTHING like the scale of wimpy, sodomistic priests we're stuck with today."
There are many, many devoted priests that though they are sinners like the rest of us, they are committed to their vocation, take is seriously and celebrate reverently. I'm not a little person, and many that I know are my size and play sports, bike, hunt.....normal.
So many write just garbage in response to Fr. MJK. What does he do that is so inconsistent with Catholic doctrine (and don't go to that voting crap again as he has never said one way or the other who he supports). Folks, a Fr. MJK keeps us grounded. Do you hear yourselves sometimes? He is 100% correct regarding priests who want n-o-t-h-i-n-g to do with trads. You shoot yourselves in the foot with responses that come off as an attempt at being holier than God. Suggest you listen to the priests on this and other blogs regarding extremism.
Perhaps borne out of frustration however, some of our commenters are really trying my patience lately with poorly thought out comments, incorrect assumptions and baseless accusations, or just trying to be the quick wit that they clearly aren't. Let's act and write with decorum and perhaps again turn on our respective filters.
Byz Rus,
I guess you misunderstand me. I was not attacking Fr. Kavanaugh or making any reference to him or his positions on anything--there are plenty of others here who do that. I was not even saying that all priests are "effeminate", "wimpy" etc..
What I WAS and STILL saying is that there are too many unmasculine priests skipping about in our sanctuaries. These are the guys that NEVER should have been admitted to the seminary in the first place. I felt this way before I was a "trad" when I was in the Novus Ordo thing up to my eyeballs. We have been so brainwashed with tolerance that we are now forbidden from saying that it is a normal reaction for heterosexual men to be repulsed by flamboyant men with Same Sex Attraction.
You can HAVE that filter. I want no part of it. If you can look at the bureaucrats int he Vatican, the mixed bag of USCCB bishops, the St. Gallen group, and the hundreds of priests who either regularly commit liturgical abberations, or have downloaded porn on their computers or abused MALE TEENS (homosexuality, NOT "pedophilia" as they keep chanting)--if you can deny all that then your filter is clogged.
I respect your right to disagree with me. But I am not about to renounce reality. And if there ARE some priests reading this who take offense at such observations...well, if the shoe fits...
I would also like to address the term made so popular thanks to MSNBC (since November): That magic word, "BASELESS".
My claims about homosexual infiltration in the Church are NOT baseless.
The millions paid in settlements confirm it.
The John Jay Report confirms it.
Michael Rose confirmed it with his book, Goodbye, Good Men.
I've sat and listened to mothers cry as they told me about the priests who sodomized their sons. I know of what I speak. I knew a family who have had to deal with the attempted suicide of their son after a trusted priest had his way with him. I know of the secret hush money paid to a woman to QUIETLY divorce her husband after the respected pastor of their parish had been having sex with him for months.
What IS baseless? To claim that homosexuality had not harmed the Church and the priesthood. It's baseless to claim that it makes no difference, "just so long as he is chaste." It is baseless to deny what the catechism teaches us, that such an orientation is OBJECTIVELY DISORDERED. And in denying that, one denies the inerrancy of Scripture, which assures us that homosexuality is a sin that cries out to Heaven for God's vengeance.
Yes, we are all sinners. That diversionary appeal is not the point. The point is, we need balanced healthy solid examples in the priesthood, not recovering (or self-indulgent non-rceovering) people with gravely disordered appetites.
ByzRus,
Take a deep breath and chill. Father K is not your friend, quite the opposite. He drove one of our most prescient commenters away, Bee, with his nasty, vicious attacks under one of his numerous anonymous handles.
Thomas Garrett - "The point is, we need balanced healthy solid examples in the priesthood, not recovering (or self-indulgent non-rceovering) people with gravely disordered appetites."
Filter = Modulate one's tone when writing and speaking. Re "we need", we "already have" and they shouldn't be trashed online with baseless broad brush statements. Some, not all, is a more fair assessment of the Roman presbyterate, particularly in the last 50 years.
TJM - Trust me, I'm always calm.
ByzRus,
You don’t sound calm and appear to be humorless
TJM
Though no one asked you, uhhhhhh, I'm pretty calm.
Ok, SOME, not All.
But way too many. Far more pervasive than we realize.
Way too many. Father Fluffy has done his damage.
Post a Comment