In a previous post about Praytell's antipathy about the EF Mass, I wrote about the Benedictine's narrow mindedness about the 1962 Missal, a prejudice against it and the elevation of Vatican II into some kind of savior or god, which is idolatry.
But let me explain why I call the good Benedictine narrow minded.
Prior to Vatican II there were many distinct "rites" in the Latin Rite each having slight or major differences from the normative Latin Rite of the pope and most Americans.
But there were also Eastern Rite Liturgies, similar to the Orthodox Church's liturgies but with the unique additional Maronite Rite which has no "Orthodox" counterpoint.
No one saw this as a threat to the liturgical unity of the Church, having these additional unique rites for small minorities of Catholics in union with Rome.
The problem with Praytell's Benedictine priest is that he sees the EF Mass as a threat to all of Vatican II and its ecclesiology and liturgical reforms. IT IS NOT! And if it is seen as such, the problem lies with a theology of rupture and a lack of continuity between the pre Vatican II Church and the Post Vatican II Church which is a sin!
I am a priest who celebrates as well as I can the Ordinary Form of the Mass and I allow all the normative option, including male and female lay readers, altar servers and horror of horrors male and female extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion.
While I have my preferences in styles of music allowed in the OF Mass, I do not impose my own tastes but allow an eclectic approach in my parishes.
I encouraged my last parish to appreciate both forms of the Mass. And in Augusta where there was an Eastern Rite parish, I know that most Augustans where aware of it and many attended it to see what it was like. It was not a threat to the normal Latin Rite parishes.
Open mindedness is absolutely necessary in today's liturgical landscape. I would recommend this not only for the Benedictine at Praytell but many who comment here. Elitism is not good!
And trying to suppress legitmate liturgical rites of the Church in the west or the east is simply authoritarianism and narrow mindedness!
8 comments:
"Normation"?
Elitism in the Catholic church at present finds its most insidious expression in the traditionalists, many here present, who continue to insult, belittle, and otherwise hurl ad hominem after ad hominem against people like Fr. Ruff.
Just read the nasty comments here, including those of the blog owner..
Fr. AJM said:
No one saw this as a threat to the liturgical unity of the Church, having these additional unique rites for small minorities of Catholics in union with Rome.
Father, I'll humbly submit that the aforementioned statment isn't 100% correct. When my Eastern relatives set foot in this country almost 110 years ago, this was very much the perception. From 'our' perspective, both Eastern Catholic and Orthodox (who were also part of my family), there never was a threat much less competition with the predominant Latin parishes. However, misunderstanding particularly within the area of married clergy, mistreatment of Eastern clergy and faithful caused 2 schisms in this country since the great migration. Father, now St. Alexis Toth lead many then Greek Catholics now Byzantine Catholics (Ruthenian) away from the church to what became the Orthodox Church in America (OCA). Fr. Orestes Chornock who became Bishop and, subsequently Metropolitan Orestes lead more Greek Catholics to what became the Carpatho Russian Orthodox Diocese (ACROD). Resultant misgivings and mistrust live on to this day in areas where both East and West are prevalent. It should have never happened but, ignorance and arrogance quickly lead to separation.
I agree with criticism of the modernists who can't find room for Latin Mass if people want it...even as liberal as the Episcopal Church is, there are still some parishes where the old 1928 Book of Common Prayer is used (in addition to the modern 1979 version, which was to some degree a product of Vatican 2). There are many rites in the Eastern Orthodox tradition. We can have unity of belief without "one size fits all" uniformity in worship.
"And trying to suppress legitimate liturgical rites of the Church in the west or the east is simply authoritarianism and narrow mindedness!"
But this was the way the neo-modernists worked after WWII. They were the experts who were omniscient when it came to liturgical matters, impressing even popes with their knowledge, nay, convincing popes that they were absolutely right in the changes that they wanted to the liturgy, that the changes by necessity had to be implemented. To effect the changes you had to have the backing of the popes; but what did popes know about the liturgy? So you plot to impress the popes with your knowledge and even trick them through manipulation to get that papal signature, such as through a narrow view of active participation.
Nothing has changed. The neo-modernist so-called liturgists still understand themselves as omniscient in liturgical matters, after all, they have a host of abbreviations after their names, so have the right to shove down people's throats their expert bourgeois ideas.
And that has been the problem since then, shoving down people's throats liturgical changes, whether they liked it or not, only really possible by suppressing the threat to their omniscience, the older forms, the the so-called "unreformed" liturgy.
ByzRC
In the interwar period Galicia was part of a re-established Polish state. The Ukrainian population consisted mostly of Eastern-Rite Catholics. The Polish government was strongly nationalist, and the Polish hierarchy was hostile to their Ukrainian co-religionists, making no secret of their desire to 'Latinize' them. This was despite the fact that the Holy See had guaranteed their rights over 300 years before.
John,
Interestingly, in the U.S. around the turn of the century and extending into the interwar period, the episcopacy, then mostly Irish and German, deployed Polish priests (mainly due to language/cultural similarities) to minister to and/or 'deal with' the growing Eastern Catholic population (mostly, the Ruthenians/Rusyns). Lacking a diocese/eparchy of their own, Eastern Catholic priests would fall under the authority of the Roman bishop nearest to their destination. Often having wives and children (excluding the hierarchy, they were not bound to the Roman discipline of celibacy), many of these priests were rejected by the Latin Ordinary and sent back to Europe. For their efforts, the Polish priests and their flocks grew increasingly frustrated with an episcopacy that had little understanding of and was generally indifferent to their particular needs, language and culture. In 1897, this frustration lead to another schism with the creation of the Polish National Catholic Church (PNCC), led by Francis Hodur. Still in existence, the PNCC ministers to souls in the Northeastern U.S. and part of Canada. Like the schism that returned many to the Russian Orthodox Church in the U.S. which became the self-governing OCA in the early 1970's, and the schism that created the Rusyn-centered American Carpatho-Rusyn Orthodox Diocese in the 1930s, this should never have happened. Despite yearly discussions, encounters and dinners in Scranton, PA, differences remain and so does this division now aged 120 years.
Just once I would like to see Fr. Anthony take on the actual arguments of Benedict XVI concerning liturgical reform. Instead we just get bizarre claims about the church condemning its past self. I just can't believe that Ruff and Praytell actually believe that the church can repudiate itself in this manner without any explicit statement to that effect in any official magisterial document, it just boggles my mind. I would love to sit down with him and have him explain this.
I wonder if the progressives are getting nervous because they realize that in the long run they won't even be able to appeal to Pope Francis as an ally. When the Pope made his liturgy speech in August, Fr. Ruff pointed out how Francis didn't quote Benedict anywhere, and crowed that it was a repudiation of Benedict. However, in a book released in France last month (the one where Francis admits to seeing a shrink), Francis states the following:
"Pope Benedict has stated very clearly: changes in the church need to be made with the hermeneutic of continuity. A beautiful phrase. This hermeneutic develops: certain things change but the whole is entirely in continuity. It does not betray its own roots, it explicates them, makes them better understood."
Yes, you read that right, this is Pope Francis. It's not out in English yet, but it's there. Massimo Faggioli (a friend of Ruff's) has stated that theologians will be baffled by these statements. Of course, Praytell won't say anything about this, not wishing i'm sure, to scandalize it's readers.
Post a Comment