Being a child of the 1960’s, I remember well the generational gap way back then as we young baby boomers were on the cutting age of being hip, with it and in touch compared to our parents and grandparents’ generation who were just plain square!
The Pillar article I post below shows the now square mindset of aging, dinosaur-like baby boomers who are experiencing a boomerang (what a great pun in this context) “squarevilleness” as it concerns the nature of the Church, the Deposit of Faith and yes, and foremost, the manner in which the liturgy is celebrated.
Poor Wilton Cardinal Gregory really stepped his foot into it harkening back to the days of one of Washington’s now deceased cardinals.
Back in the day, another “squareville” Cardinal, but this time acting in an orthodox way against heterodox priests, Patrick Cardinal O’Boyle, alienated the hip, with it and groovy priests of his day. O’Boyle was an ardent supporter of Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae and placed ecclesiastical censures on priests who dissented from its teachings. Of course, this was a Cardinal upholding orthodox teachings in light of young-uns wanting heterodox sexuality. (BTW, those young priests dissenting from Humanae Vitae way back when, are now in power today and about the age of Cardinal Gregory!)
So, the good Cardinal of Washington, DC just doesn’t get the appeal of the TLM, the grand permission and encouragement that a truly hip pope, Pope Benedict XVI, gave to bishops, priests, religious and laity to experiment with the TLM, relish it, promote it and just wallow in its mystical magnificence which enables Catholics to experience the glorified and Risen Lord in His Word and Sacrament not often experienced in the modern Mass for them.
It’s a generational gap and Cardinal Gregory simply doesn’t get it, nor Pope Francis, for that matter or the prelates and religious who Pope Francis has chosen to advise him.
It’s particularly difficult for aging baby boomer prelates, especially those with higher degrees concerning the reformed Mass, to deal with all the hard academic studies they went through to get liturgy doctorates only to find out most of those studies were a waste of time now that their theology is out of date.
But here is JD Flynn’s commentary on the do-do that Cardinal Gregory stepped into the other day at Catholic Univeristy:
8 comments:
Aside from the perception that the parishioners did not ask for or support the Old Form it seems odd that priests would need to be ‘dealt with’ for educating their flocks on the historical forms of the Liturgy. This implies that there is something wrong with the old form, just as there appears to be something wrong with the old form of the Syrio-Malabar versus populum form. What is wrong with these older forms that they must be suppressed? Frankly, the suppression seems fascist.
How this man every rose so high in the ranks utterly confounds me, save for the fact that he's just another one of Bernardin's Boys. That's hardly something to be proud of.
https://twitter.com/dcrosaryrally/status/1723899117250715890?s=20
Quite a juxtaposition due the actions of his Eminence.
Like the aging liberal/queen he is; he simply makes up history to suit his own preference. There is no evidence to support his made up history and much to deny it - but it gives him the excuse to crush what he does not like; regardless of what his people want. He knows better so just pray, pay and obey. We've come full circle.
He has a doctorate in liturgy, you know! Trust the experts, you guys!!
Nick
A few points:
1) It seems like his emininence is "punching down." Would it be safe (let alone appropriate) for any of his priests, or even priests elsewhere, to pick a fight with him, publicly, in this way? We priests certainly earn blame at various points, but this seems gratuitous.
2) While Cardinal Gregory can legitimately criticize priests for "imposing" preferences, or not being considerate of the sensibilities of the faithful, I think he would have more credibility on this subject if it weren't focused on the Traditional Latin Mass.
3) There are glaring problems of fidelity to liturgical norms in the Roman Rite; it is bitterly amusing to see bishops focusing on tradition-leaning problems as if, but for those, all would be well.
4) There is the yawning question that no one at the top seems to be interested in: why is there even a market among Catholics under 50 for things traditional? The cardinal here seems to deny that appetite even exists, apart from troublesome priests, but that is simply not credible.
5) Related: if a recent bit of research regarding priests and seminarians is to be believed, theological and liturgical "liberalism" among priests is very endangered. Why is this?
6) And why is it that almost no one actually likes the Mass of 1970? I point out, as I have done before, that most of those who claim to be absolutely devoted to it, cannot help re-making it constantly. If you like steak, you don't try to turn it into ramen noodles.
"Queen" is pointlessly insulting, at minimum, and sure seems vicious.
indeed these kinds of insults does not improve the reputation of traditionalists who have a caricature of being unchariable and nasty. But it is true that the TLM “problem with priests” is minuscule compared to priests who distort the Modern Mass without a word of challenge or correction from bishop, who themselves, participate in silly distortions of the modern Mass. And yes, this is because, as you accurately state, that no one is completely happy with the modern Mass!
While I must agree that the insult made by monkmcg is uncalled for, I have a certain compassion for what many Catholics have been trained to put up with.
Whether we want to admit it or not, many of us have put up with an inordinately effeminate cadre of priests who, for quite a while, seemed to be taking over the parishes, while normal men seemed to be disappearing from the priesthood. Michael Rose gave us a detailed explanation of this phenomenon in his Goodbye Good Men.
One of the most frustrating things about this is that there was a time when any priest or bishop would have RIGHTFULLY felt a certain shame about having such attractions and certainly would have publicly denied it or tried to minimize any chance of giving such an impression to the public. I can think of at least two prominent bishops who come off like major sissies==and no I will not mention their names--and these, again are among the more prominent.
It is discouraging to see the shamelessness these men have about their disorder and the even more sickening way that they have prioritized outreach to other sexually disordered people over the myriad of bigger problems plaguing the Church. These "men" need to feel some shame and embarrassment. The sickening thing is, they don't. As long as they are not held to any higher standard, the faithful will be tempted to throw such insults at them. I am not excusing it, just saying I get the man's frustration. Many of us have a long-untreated case of fag-fatigue when it comes to some priests.
Post a Comment