Wednesday, September 7, 2016
GROSTESQUE INSECURITY ABOUT WHAT ONE TEACHES AND SHUTTING DOWN, IN A DICTATORIAL WAY, DISCUSSION CONTRARY TO ONE'S IDEOLOGY
But when someone on a supposed academic blog concerning the liturgy makes blanket statements which are intended to provoke comments, since comments are allowed and encouraged, but only from like minded individuals of a certain class, other bloggers can take up a voice of protest or even set the record straight, especially if what is spewed forth is done so in an "infallible, not to be questioned way."
The worst thing about post Vatican II "spirit of Vatican II" ideologists is that they, professing to be progressive, open minded, open to dialogue and discussion, promote their post Vatican II, spirit of Vatican II ideologies in the most pre-Vatican II authoritarian way.
And thus I read this comment by a blogger of an infamous liturgy blog that while progressive is very narrow minded, which is not an oxymoron (MY COMMENTS IN RED):
Allow me to clarify the editorial policy of this blog. There really is no controversy for those who understand and accept Vatican II. It’s become increasingly clear to me that those who want to stir up all this controversy about Bugnini either really don’t accept Vatican II, or they fundamentally misunderstand Vatican II, or both.
The Council laid out all the principles for reform – principles which clearly call for a paradigm shift that has lots of implications for structural reforms. (This is true, but with some 50 years having passed and this shift in paradigm and so-called implications shoved down the throats of innocent laity after Vatican II, it is permissible, even morally ethical to call into question those things that many, many clergy and laity believe have deformed not only the Liturgy but the Church. There is nothing infallible about a paradigm shift and certainly about subsequent implications shoved down people's throats by academics with an ideological agenda.) The reform went beyond what Vatican II said because Vatican II didn’t say that much about the particularities of the reform, but left that to the postconciliar commission. It’s the fundamental principles that are key.
For those who understand and accept Vatican II, of course there can always be calm discussion about whether this point or that could have been handled differently (which of course can be the case) or should have been. But this isn’t controversy – note the difference. (This is trying to debate what the meaning of the word "is" is, as the Clinton's did. There has been controversy galore since Vatican II in a non stop way that has diminished the mission of the Church and her members, most of it caused by those who sought to put their version of the "implications" i.e. spirit of Vatican II forward and with great success for themselves but not for the Church--that is the meaning of controversial.)
This website has a clear mission – to promote the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council. This means that our editorial policy presumes that there really isn’t any serious controversy around Bugnini. Our readers really don’t want to read about those who think it is a controversy – since our readers are people who tend to understand and accept the liturgical reforms. (In all other areas, this blogger would applaud the "inclusive" ideology so prevalent in so-called open minded progressives in the Church but with one big caveat which he has stated loudly and clearly. Don't rock the progressive boat, because the captain is extremely insecure and it could cause those who agree with him to reconsider their agreement or worse yet, stop reading his blog.)
Also, note that you’re mistaken about Redemptionis Sacramentum – it is not more authoritative than the reformed liturgy carried out under Bugnini. It is a minor document. The reformed liturgy is not – it’s is the papally approved official liturgy of the Catholic Church. (In terms of authority, I would say that an ecumenical council has great authority but if it isn't dogmatic, it can be adjusted subsequently, especially if the non-infallible ideologies or theologies are proven to be the cause of the Church running off the rails. Yes, the reformed liturgy is of the highest, or almost highest form of papal authority. So is Pope Benedict's allowance of the now so-called "two forms of the one Roman Rite: the Extraordinary Form (out of the usual) and the Ordinary Form (the normal form of the Mass).
Progressives love to sing the praises of Pope Paul's liturgical authority, which His Holiness possessed by virtue of his office, but decry Pope Benedict's authority--how do you spell HYPOCRISY?)
And finally this last comment from the same insecure blogger who can't stand being challenged by his readers who post cogent comments which are anything but disrespectful:
I’ve left these last two comments from you two, but then that will be enough. Pray Tell readers have said ‘loud and clear’ that they like Pray Tell as a place to support the reformed liturgy and celebrate it better. They’ve heard all the arguments about ‘reform of the reform’ and what Vatican II supposedly really intended and aren’t interested in re-hashing it over and over. There are other places for that – Pray Tell isn’t the place and it isn’t our mission.
There was an article in our Worship magazine by an expert on the low canonical status of RS – you can search it out there if you’re interested. Or any basic textbook on liturgical law by a reputable author would clarify this matter.
Thank you for your understanding.
In fact the two who offer the best rebuttal to an insecure blogger are the most interesting and intelligent comments on the whole thread, but the blogger's insecurity shuts the discussion down. That's his right, but also our right to call it out for what it is.
YOU CAN READ THE CONTEXT OF THIS POST BY READING THE POST AND COMMENTS THERE BY PRESSING HERE.