Archbishop Salvatore Cordilione celebrates a "model" Modern Latin Mass ad orientem.
Please note the beautiful altar frontal and lace altar cloth and the traditional altar arrangement. Stunning to say the least.
Every parish and cathedral where the TLM was banned, should have immediately defaulted to this style of the Modern Latin Mass.
Let's grow up, grit our teeth, put on our adult clothes and offer our sufferings for the poor souls and make the best of what is given to us. Be happy, not sad!
44 comments:
It’s not whining. TC is ultra vires and you and I know it. Per Benedict XVI what was once sacred remains sacred. When the old tyrant has gone to his “reward” I expect TC will be tossed onto the ash-bin of history. Common decency and justice demands that!
What about a both-and approach?
Nick
Father, I used to attend what would be considered an ideal offering of the new Mass, see below (*). However, I am still drawn to the Traditional Latin Mass. Aside from the prayers, which I find draw me deeper into the Mass, the spirituality is vastly different. We also don't have to deal with all the distractions that exist in the new Mass. :-(
Since both Masses are - liturgically speaking - from different rites, it would seem the best solution would be to formally acknowledge this and treat them as the separate rites they are. Let time determine if one or both survive, and let those who are drawn to one over the other worship in the manner that is best suited for them.
As an aside, would you think the same way if the Pope suddenly decided to treat the Byzantine rite the same way he is treating the traditional Roman rite?
* A little plug: For anyone visiting Massachusetts who prefers the new Mass, I would highly recommend St. Benedict's Abbey in Still River, MA. Their website is https://abbey.org/.
Thank you Yvonne, for your comment and sober way of thinking, which is my way of thinking too. I think it was a terrible tactical decision by Pope Francis to undo Summorum Pontificum. Instead he should have either, 1. Direct bishops to make sure that Summorum Pontificum is being implemented properly and correcting any radical ideas that the Modern Mass is invalid and Vatican II needs to be canned. Or, he could have made the FSSP into an Ordinariate with its own bishops but that the Ordinariate should allow the Modern Mass and Sacraments as an option, a kind of Summorum Pontificum for the Modern Mass/liturgies by an Ordinariate who primarily celebrates the older rites. I think the Anglican Ordinariate can celebrate both the Modern Mass of the Latin Rite and the TLM as well as their own unique liturgies which Pope Benedict initiated and Pope Francis promulgated.
Father McDonald said..."Direct bishops to make sure that Summorum Pontificum is being implemented properly and correcting any radical ideas that the Modern Mass is invalid and Vatican II needs to be canned."
The problem is that speaking humanly, ridding the TLM Movement of the above is an all but impossible task. The unfortunate reality is that the war(s) against Vatican II, as well as the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI, is widespread among "traditional" Catholics.
More than a few folks within the TLM Movement believe that Vatican II/reformed Mass is a Protestant/Jewish/Masonic conspiracy designed to destroy the Church.
The Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI is mocked as the "Nervous Disorder...Novus Bogus." Six Protestants had been tapped to invent the "Masonic" Mass. The True Church has been replaced by New Church/Modernist Rome. The TLM is the "True Mass." Our holy Vatican II Era Popes are "Modernists."
We know the drill.
The liturgical peace plans offered by Popes Saint John Paul II, as well as Benedict XVI, were rejected by more than a few "traditionalists."
Summorum Pontificum, in particular, was denounced as a muddled, unsustainable document that had been packed with "lies" (Peter Kwasniewski's claim) to attempt to force that which many had considered impossible. That is, the peaceful coexistence of the "two forms of the one Roman Rite."
In addition, why would bishops who, in vast numbers, had opposed Summorum Pontificum, have worked to correct problems that plagued a movement (TLM) which they had ignored?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father McDonald,
You know I respect and admire your work for the Sacred Liturgy. Unlike PF, you have matured in your priesthood. Let's call a spade, a spade. TC was an act of pure malice, evil, and viciousness. When historians look back at this, they are going to say, "you've got to be kidding." I think a better case can be made that the Novus Ordo is the Rite that needs to be suppressed, after all, is has only been around a mere 55 years and is wildly divisive and wildly unsuccessful.
Mark thomas,
It rather discredits you to use sedevacantist and near-sedevacantist talking points and personalities in your attacks on those who go to the TLM, most of whom don't give a rip about such polemics. Tell me, what would you have Mr. and Mrs. Jones, parents to eight and in need of a vacation, do about Kwas or Bishop Williamson or Novus Ordo Watch?
And while we're talking about opposition from bishops, let's talk Traditionis Traditores and Fiducia Supper-cans.
Nick
Mark Thomas,
I think it is wrong to punish the vast majority of people for the mindset of a small, albeit, vocal minority. If you spend time in Eastern Catholic circles you will also hear negative comments from some of them regarding the new Mass. I do wonder, however, how many of them are people who transferred from the Latin Church.
One thing I have noticed in the TLM circles is that the younger people who are attracted to the Mass don't carry the same baggage that the older people do and, as a result, can attend the TLM without having any desire to denigrate the new Mass.
Are there issues with how the new Mass is celebrated in many places, and these issues need to be addressed? Definitely. However, it should be done with respect. There is no need to put down the new Mass nor the people who attend it. Is it my cup of tea? No, but then the TLM isn't everyone's cup of tea either.
In regard to the idea that Pope Francis could have directed "bishops to make sure that Summorum Pontificum is being implemented properly..."
Father, I am not certain as to how that would have worked as from the beginning, widespread outrage among bishops had greeted Summorum Pontificum's issuance.
It is true that speaking relatively, a handful of bishops had greeted Summorum Pontificum favorably. But in his 2007 A.D. Letter to Bishops, Pope Benedict XVI had noted that "harsh opposition," as well as "fears," had also greeted Summorum Pontificum.
From there, it was downhill as, throughout the years, Summorum Pontificum had been weaponized to attack Vatican II, as well as the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI.
It had fallen to Pope Francis to have noted that "the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith carried out a detailed consultation of the bishops in 2020. "The responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me and persuades me of the need to intervene."
"Regrettably, the pastoral objective of my Predecessors, who had intended ‘to do everything possible to ensure that all those who truly possessed the desire for unity would find it possible to remain in this unity or to rediscover it anew’, has often been seriously disregarded."
"An opportunity offered by St. John Paul II and, with even greater magnanimity, by Benedict XVI, intended to recover the unity of an ecclesial body with diverse liturgical sensibilities, was exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division."
========
I am uncertain as to how His Holiness could have turned to our bishops to have corrected the above. That is true especially as among a great many bishops, widespread concern and dissatisfaction with Summorum Pontificum existed.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Yvonne,
You are dealing with someone who is non mentis compos. Forget about it
Yvonne, thank you for your reply. I recall that you and I last year had a couple of conversations with each. We disagreed with each other (that is fine). The important, wonderful thing is that we had done so in charitable fashion.
=================
Yvonne said..."If you spend time in Eastern Catholic circles you will also hear negative comments from some of them regarding the new Mass. I do wonder, however, how many of them are people who transferred from the Latin Church."
Yvonne, within Eastern Catholicism, one may encounter also negative comments related to the TLM. In regard to Eastern Catholicism and the TLM: During Vatican II, for example, Eastern Catholic Fathers were among the most vocal proponents of the radical reform of the Roman Liturgy.
They favored the powerful, unrelenting, pre-Vatican II liturgical movement, empowered, in particular, by Pope Venerable Pius XII, that had sought to reform the Roman Liturgy.
In particular, His Beatitude Maximos IV Saigh, then-patriarch of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, insisted that the TLM had long been in dire need of major reform (s). He denounced, for example, the practice of offering Mass in Latin.
I believe that his opposition to Latin was so fierce that he refused to have addressed the Council in Latin.
Anyway, His Beatitude Maximos IV Saigh was appalled that the "traditional" Roman Liturgy had, for centuries, existed in state of stagnation. He denounced liturgical practices that had long reduced the Faithful at the TLM to "silent spectator" status.
Within Eastern Catholicism, there is a history of criticism directed at the "traditional" Roman Mass.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Yvonne said..."Are there issues with how the new Mass is celebrated in many places, and these issues need to be addressed? Definitely. However, it should be done with respect. There is no need to put down the new Mass nor the people who attend it. Is it my cup of tea? No, but then the TLM isn't everyone's cup of tea either."
Yvonne, thank you for that.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
I have written before about the new Mass. I hope greater harmony will exist in the future regarding what was once considered the Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form. Obviously the liturgical renewal of Pope Benedict XVI has been rejected by Pope Francis, but that logic won’t last forever. Many young priests are ‘restoring tradition’ and perhaps truly implementing liturgical renewal that’s been side tracked by modernist clergy for decades. Here in KC, many parishes are embracing the pre-Vatican II sanctuary layout versus the minimalist post-Vatican II sanctuary layouts. My parish has continued the trend of ‘restoring tradition’ as seen below.
https://goodcounselkc.org/gallery/
Yvonne,
Don't waste your time arguing with someone who knows everything.
Surely you know by now that modernists, liberals and leftists spend more time attempting to define (and distort) those they disagree with than they spend on telling us anything useful.
TJM and Jerome,
Although I understand where your comments are coming from, I must admit that I enjoy conversing with Mark Thomas. I would love to have a sit down dinner with Mark, Fr. McDonald, and a few others at some point. I think our conversations would be very interesting.
How interesting that Sacrosanctum Concilium smacked down (metaphorically) Patriarch Maximos, and that the Council Fathers (even those most in favor of broad reforms) thought it laughable and/or deplorable to cease use of Latin in the Roman liturgy. Mark Thomas, why do you support those who oppose Vatican II?
Nick
Yvonne,
That is your choice of course but sitting down to dinner with a PF sycophant and a cut and paste "thinker" is not my idea of a stimulating evening.
Yvonne said..."I would love to have a sit down dinner with Mark, Fr. McDonald..."
Yvonne, dinner would be on me...as long as you, and Father, kept your orders to $1.25 each off the McDonald's Value Menu.
:-)
Pax.
Mark Thomas
P.S. During dinner, let's not discuss religion. Politics...okay. But I never, ever, discuss religion. :-)
Mark Thomas,
Ha!
Yvonne said..."I think it is wrong to punish the vast majority of people for the mindset of a small, albeit, vocal minority."
Yvonne, I understand your point. I recognize that there are non-extremists who love the TLM.
I love the TLM.
I believe that His Holiness has done his best to accommodate non-extremists who love the TLM. I am thankful for that. Unfortunately, in regard to Summorum Pontificum: Pope Francis inherited a difficult, dreadful situation.
Leading "traditionalists" insisted that Summorum Pontificum had been destined to collapse. Said folks blamed Pope Benedict XVI for his having produced a supposed muddled, unsustainable, flawed document.
I do not pin Summorum Pontificum's failure upon Pope Benedict XVI. But the breaking point had been reached in regard to Summorum Pontificum's collapse. Pope Francis had been forced to act.
Yvonne, again, I understand your point.
I pray that our bishops heed Father McDonald's call to provide us with numerous uplifting Latin/Gregorian Chant/ad orientem Masses via the reformed Rite. I pray that such Masses will comfort/uplift non-extremists spirituality.
Yvonne, peace and good health to you and your family.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
De gustibus non est disputandum
Yvonne said..."I think it is wrong to punish the vast majority of people for the mindset of a small, albeit, vocal minority."
Yvonne, Peter Kwasniewski has acknowledged the following:
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2021/03/are-women-permitted-to-sing-propers-of.html
"While I am an adamant opponent of feminism, I am no less staunch an opponent of chauvinism wherever I see it — and I do see it reappearing in the traditional movement, along with other -isms (e.g., antisemitism, libertarianism, sedevacantism) that are incompatible with Catholic tradition."
"The revival of traditional liturgical practice has permitted the reappearance of some extreme points of view that deserve refutation."
===========
Yvonne, in opposition to the above, you have offered the following holy approach:
"There is no need to put down the new Mass nor the people who attend it. Is it my cup of tea? No, but then the TLM isn't everyone's cup of tea either."
Yvonne, I appreciate your peaceful comment.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
N said..."...the Council Fathers (even those most in favor of broad reforms) thought it laughable and/or deplorable to cease use of Latin in the Roman liturgy."
Then why did Conciliar Fathers, acting on behalf of their dioceses, petition Rome to expand, in tremendous fashion, the use of vernaculars?
One Conciliar Father after another had succeeded in having all but driven Latin/Gregorian Chant from his diocese.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
This doesn't get to the essence of the problem, the fact that anything outside of this is possible to be offered as a Mass should be considered an embarrassment. (That is to say Liturgy is something received, the best should be offered to God at all times). What is done here should be the norm everywhere. Anything resembling the Religious Education Congress "Mass" should be considered Anathema.
I'm not sure why so many bishops violated and rejected Vatican II soon after it ended. It really makes one wonder about nasty, baseless accusations of heresy, schism, and rejection of ***special effects*** the Council against ordinary people who attend the TLM.
Nick
Father McDonald,
If you chose to destroy your blog with a moron and a fake Catholic priest that is your prerogative but you will have to count me out. Bonne chance!
What is being ignored is that by placing restriction on how the new Mass is said, the very people who criticize the old Mass and insist that we all celebrate the new are themselves rejecting the new Mass. The new Mass can be said in a very traditional manner: Latin, Gregorian chant, ad orientem, etc. But this had not been allowed. Those who have attempted to do so have been treated with great severity. This rejection of the new Mass as written is what has lead to the increased interest in the old. To all those that insist that the new Mass is the only legitimate expression of the Roman rite, I say that you also accept it and promote the widespread celebration of it in a traditional manner as is provided in the Missale Romanum.
I said..."One Conciliar Father after another had succeeded in having all but driven Latin/Gregorian Chant from his diocese."
I do not mean that our bishops had done so in nefarious fashion.
The Conciliar Fathers had gauged the liturgical needs of, as well as requests from, the Holy People of God. The Faithful in unrelenting fashion had desired Mass in vernaculars.
In turn, the Fathers, as spiritual leaders of their dioceses, had petitioned Rome to open the Roman Liturgy to vernacularization.
Actually, it was Pope Venerable Pius XII who, years prior to the Council, and in unmistakable fashion, had opened the door to vernacularization. Bishops in various nations, such as the United States, had, at first, reacted in lukewarm fashion to Pope Venerable Pius XII's radical liturgical reforms.
But by 1956 A.D., at the Assisi Eucharistic Congress, the bishops, for example, from the United States, announced that they had studied their flocks' reactions to said liturgical reforms.
The bishops of the United States announced that the Faithful of their dioceses, in overwhelming fashion, had supported the reforms. In particular, the bishops had noted that the Faithful in tremendous fashion had favored the process of vernacularization.
There are revisionists who, in preposterous fashion, have pretended that the vast amount of Latin Church Faithful did not desire the liturgical reform. In particular, revisionists have claimed that the Latin Church Faithful had opposed vernacularization.
That is nonsense.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas,
It is not revisionism to say that at the council the bishops did not favor vernacularization. That their position change after the council does not justify attributing this movement to the council itself and clothing it with its authority. Additionally, it is one thing to liberalize the use of the vernacular and another to forbidding the use of Latin. Vernacular and Latin Masses could have, and can now, coexist side-by-side. Perhaps the bishops were responding to the desires of the faithful after the council, but today there is a growing desire among the faithful for a more traditional Mass, if not the old Mass itself. Should not the bishops today also heed the voice the faithful, or did the immediate post-Vatican II generation have a special charism that is now binding on all future generations? It is possible to celebrate the new Mass in a very traditional manner. Will you not accept the new Mass as written and support a widespread celebration of it in such a manner for those who wish it?
Anthony, it is revisionism to claim "that the council the bishops did not favor vernacularization. That their position change after the council does not justify attributing this movement to the council itself and clothing it with its authority."
In 1963 A.D., 2,147 Conciliar Fathers to 4 had approved Sacrosanctum Concilium. In turn, Sacrosanctum Concilium had opened the door wide to the Roman Liturgy's vernacularization.
Sacrosanctum Concilium declared that "since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended."
"These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See."
Rome was flooded with requests from Conciliar Fathers to approve the widespread use of vernaculars.
===========
In addition to the above, throughout the 1940s/1950s, Pope Venerable Pius XII had approved numerous requests from bishops worldwide to open the Roman Liturgy to the use of vernaculars.
Finally, on the 25th Anniversary of Sacrosanctum Concilium, Pope Saint John Paul II made it clear that legitimate post-Vatican II liturgical developments approved by Rome are in accord with Vatican II principles.
-- Apostolic Letter on the 25th Anniversary of the Constitution "Sacrosanctum Concilium" given December 4, 1988.
"This work was undertaken in accordance with the conciliar principles of fidelity to tradition and openness to legitimate development, and so it is possible to say that the reform of the Liturgy is strictly traditional and in accordance with the ancient usage of the holy Fathers".
Anthony, thank you for your reply.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Anthony, it is revisionism to claim "that the council the bishops did not favor vernacularization. That their position change after the council does not justify attributing this movement to the council itself and clothing it with its authority."
In 1963 A.D., 2,147 Conciliar Fathers to 4 had approved Sacrosanctum Concilium. In turn, Sacrosanctum Concilium had opened the door wide to the Roman Liturgy's vernacularization.
Sacrosanctum Concilium declared that "since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended."
"These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See."
Rome was flooded with requests from Conciliar Fathers to approve the widespread use of vernaculars.
===========
In addition to the above, throughout the 1940s/1950s, Pope Venerable Pius XII had approved numerous requests from bishops worldwide to open the Roman Liturgy to the use of vernaculars.
Finally, on the 25th Anniversary of Sacrosanctum Concilium, Pope Saint John Paul II made it clear that legitimate post-Vatican II liturgical developments approved by Rome are in accord with Vatican II principles.
-- Apostolic Letter on the 25th Anniversary of the Constitution "Sacrosanctum Concilium" given December 4, 1988.
"This work was undertaken in accordance with the conciliar principles of fidelity to tradition and openness to legitimate development, and so it is possible to say that the reform of the Liturgy is strictly traditional and in accordance with the ancient usage of the holy Fathers".
Anthony, thank you for your reply.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas,
So that we do not talk past each other, let us define our terms. By "vernacularization" I understand a completely vernacular Mass, not the introduction of the vernacular as a supplement to an otherwise mostly Latin Mass. The two paragraphs prior to the one you quoted in SC read as follows:
36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
Thus what the council envisioned was not a completely vernacular Mass but one mainly in Latin supplemented by the a limited use of the vernacular. Concern was mentioned at the council that the introduction, even on a limited bases, of the vernacular would lead to a completely vernacular Mass. This, at the time, was ridiculed as an unfounded fear.
Nor can you appeal to the provision that competent territorial ecclesiastical authority could extend the use of the vernacular as proof that the council desired a completely vernacular Mass. By that same provision local bishops could have also mandated a completely Latin Mass. That article is neutral on the question of how much of the vernacular was to be used.
As you yourself have shown, the introduction of a completely vernacular Mass was a decision of the bishops after the council, and not of the council itself. Thus to call for a return to Latin cannot be characterized as a rejection of Vatican II. Nor do we need oppose Latin and the vernacular as a question of either/or. Both have a place in the new Mass. Just as after the council the bishops responded to calls by the laity for more use of the vernacular, today they should heed the calls from the laity for the free use of Latin for those who wish it.
Thus I stand by my statement that it is not revisionism to say that at the council the bishops did not favor vernacularization (i.e. a completely vernacular Mass).
Anthony said..."It is possible to celebrate the new Mass in a very traditional manner. Will you not accept the new Mass as written and support a widespread celebration of it in such a manner for those who wish it?"
Anthony, I am on board with the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI celebrated "in a very traditional manner."
But I doubt that such a Mass would satisfy many "traditional" Catholics. Many among said folks believe that the "Bugnini Mass"/"Nervous Disorder"/"Novus Bogus" is part of a Jewish/Protestant/Masonic conspiracy to destroy the Faith.
Even when celebrated "in a very traditional manner," said folks have insisted that such a Mass is not the "True Mass...the Mass of All-Time."
The Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI is an "imposter" (Peter Kwasniewski's term) Mass that God despises, and will destroy, according to certain "traditionalists."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas,
Of course there are extremists, and this on both sides. But we should not have our views colored by an outspoken minority. It is hard to say that most traditional Catholics would not be satisfied with the a traditional form of the new Mass since most have not have had an opportunity to experience. Nor should we confuse being satisfied with preferring. For myself, I prefer the old Mass but would be satisfied with celebrating the new in a traditional manner. Unfortunately, however, thais has not been an option. Thus I have been driven to the old Mass because a traditional form the new Mass has not been available or allowed.
You say that you are on board with the new Mass celebrated in a traditional manner. Will you then encourage your bishop to remove all the de facto restrictions on it and encourage its celebration? Will you seek to have it introduced into your own parish as a legitimate alternative to the old Mass?
Anthony, I appreciate the points that you have made. I appreciate that you have stood by your comments.
I stand as well by my statements as the Council declared: "...it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used..."
As soon as it had become possible, one Conciliar Father after another had transitioned his flock to all-vernacular Masses. It was not long following the Council that Latin had all but disappeared from Western Church parishes.
The following is certain: In overwhelming fashion, the Latin Church Faithful had welcomed all-vernacular Masses.
Anthony, I again thank you for your reply.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas,
I do not wish to be pedantic but by that statement the council basically said that they were not making a decision on the use of the vernacular, leaving it to the national bishops' conferences. There may well be good reasons for moving from Latin to the vernacular, but let us attribute it to who actually made that decisions, the bishop acting in national conference after the council had closed, not Vatican II. And there is no reason why that decision cannot be revisited by the bishops today. But my call for a traditional form of the new Mass goes well beyond Latin and includes other important aspects. It is by suppressing the possibility of a traditional form of the new Mass that the advocates for liturgical reform have driven many of the faithful to the old Mass. I myself am a case in point. It is hypocritical to insist that everyone accept the new Mass while at the same time restricting legitimate options to celebrate that Mass in a traditional manner.
I can't speak for the bishops conferences or those present at the Second Vatican Council, but I can certainly recall the reaction of the laity to the abrupt change imposed upon them. It was divisive and chaotic. My grandfather, who had converted to the faith in 1913 when he married my grandmother, said, "When I became a Catholic, they told me that the Church had always been the same and would never change. Now look what they've done!" The pastor of our parish wasn't especially keen on implementing the Novus Ordo and he took a lot of complaints after Masses. One woman got up during a Mass in my parish and interrupted by shouting at the priest "You ought to be ashamed of yourself!" and stormed out.
The imposition--and make no mistake, it WAS an imposition--of the Novus Ordo was not smooth sailing and it was not immediately popular. Any suggestion otherwise is not a revisionist myth. It's a lie.
Anthony said..."But my call for a traditional form of the new Mass goes well beyond Latin and includes other important aspects. It is by suppressing the possibility of a traditional form of the new Mass that the advocates for liturgical reform have driven many of the faithful to the old Mass. I myself am a case in point. It is hypocritical to insist that everyone accept the new Mass while at the same time restricting legitimate options to celebrate that Mass in a traditional manner."
Anthony, I appreciate your comment. I pray that our bishops promote that which you have suggested.
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
In the post-Vatican II Church, up is down, black is white, and "preserved" means "discouraged, discarded, and effectively banned." And the defender (how their numbers dwindle!) of this split-minded backwardness (indietrismo?) just copy-and-paste scurrilous, collective-guilt-style ad hominems at critics, as has been done for so many decades. Too bad fewer and fewer people are buying that malarkey. Maybe it's the inflation.
Nick
If you chose to destroy your blog with a moron and a fake Catholic priest that is your prerogative but you will have to count me out. Bonne chance!
TJM, are you leaving the blog? I hope not.
I don't believe differing opinions destroy a blog. If anything, they help us refine what we believe and allow us to challenge those with whom we disagree. They also help us to learn patience. This blog has had some lively discussions over the years!
Some of the things I like about MT's entries are that he is constistently kind in his responses, and never seems to take things personally. When I enter my own posts I have to ask myself if I am being the same? Sometimes, yes, other times ...
Yvonne,
This is about more than a mere difference of opinions or a need for refinement among those who post.
The problem is that the person in question (and you can comb the archives here for proof) has a long history of utterly monopolizing the comment area, often placing as many as four lengthy comments in succession with no replies between them. His tone is artificial, sanctimonious and dripping with pretentious piety. He utterly ignores rational arguments and has a tendency to label anyone who dares to question his current idol as "satanic". There are plenty of differing opinions here, some rather blatant, others more nuanced. Then there's the other guy. He's the fool at the party that you keep moving away from only to have him turn up again in the new group you're chatting with and he is loudly insinuating himself into the conversation. That's the party you wish you had stayed home from. In this forum, when the person in question starts on one of his "uber-holy" tirades, with his faux courtesy "thank you for telling me that, God bless you" schtick...well, it just gets old. I find myself less and less likely to even READ the comments anymore once I see that he has entered the conversation. That's it.
Jerome,
Got it.
Attention: Whiners. T
-- Father McDonald determines as to whether to post this, or that, comment to his blog.
-- Father McDonald determines the amount of comments that a person posts to a thread.
-- Father may permit, for example, "Person X" to post one million comments to a thread. That is Father McDonald's business.
Here is the bottom line in regard to the whiners: They do not complain about the amount of comments posted by Person "X" as long as the whiners agree with Person "X."
Father McDonald, and nobody else, controls his blog's content. Father McDonald controls also the amount of comments that, for example, Person "X" posts to a thread.
Should Father McDonald, for example, each day post one million negative comments directed at yours truly, then so be it. That is fine with me as this is Father's blog. Nobody forces me to participate here. This Father McDonald's blog to control as he pleases.
The whiners in question may wish to adopt the above attitude.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father McDonald, to his credit, is consistently a gentleman. I have been reading this blog almost from the beginning and he never deletes anything unless it has obscene content or is just plain vulgar. His liberality, tolerance and patience are an example to us all. In short, he pretty much posts everything and is too polite to argue with most of the people who post here and when he does disagree, he does so in a courteous, dignified manner and in the gentlest possible tone. To throw the blame for unnecessary content on his shoulders deflects the issue of the unnecessary content.
Post a Comment