In terms of unity in liturgical and even doctrinal diversity, the cultural heritage and ethos of the liturgies of the east and the west (Western Rites in union with the pope; Eastern Rites in union or not in union with the pope) is of the same period of initial organic development although with the differences in cultural trappings of the period in which they developed.
With the revisions of the Latin Rite liturgies after Vatican II, the Roman Rite liturgies became distanced from our Eastern Rites counterparts and pulled more into the cultural ethos of Protestantism’s concepts of liturgy, stripped down, simplified and instructional rather than mystical.
It appears that Pope Paul VI and his Consilium thought it was more important for the Roman Rite to align itself with the Protestant ethos of the Liturgy than with the Eastern Rites, in union or in schism (Orthodox). This is very odd to say the least since the East, in union or in schism, have valid sacraments, valid apostolic succession and more in common with Rome than Protestantism. Very strange indeed. But ecumenism with Protestantism, with a naive belief this would lead Protestants back to the Catholic Church, was deemed more important than leading the Orthodox back to full communion. I would say it is easier to lead the Orthodox back to full communion, because it has already been done with those who are in the Eastern Rites of the Church.
But why are so many Catholics, clergy and laity, so fearful of the TLM liturgies?
1. They think it is divisive. But it is not more divisive than the Liturgies of the Eastern Rites in Union with Rome.
2. They think TLMers are rigid and backwardists. That may be so, but why do the TLMphobics think they need to psychoanalyze fellow Catholics and their liturgical preferences?
3. They say that Latin is a language that many don’t understand. That’s true, but with today’s multiplicity of languages at Mass often those who attend Mass if they are English speakers can’t under Spanish, Portuguese, Vietnamese and the like.
4. They think the TLM liturgies are an attempt to undo Vatican II. Do they think that is also the case with those who love the Eastern Rites Liturgies which, for the most part, were not reformed by the Vatican and if Vatican II had an effect on them, it was more parochial than from on high.
5. They think it marginalizes the laity, glorifies clericalism and isn’t in tune with Vatican II ecclesiology—so what? Both accept the Nicene Creed except for heterodox TLM haters.
Yes TLMphobia, while not a crime is a mental illness that needs counseling, not radicalization.
11 comments:
It is truly evil - it's like hating your Mother!
Müllner, Professor of Biblical Theology at the Institute for Catholic Theology at the University of Kassel, Germany. Müllner offers the example of how interpretations of Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:26-27 which condemn homosexuality are wrong:
“You can’t use these passages against homosexuality as it is understood today, because they are not about a long-term love relationship between people of the same sex. You have to know that before using such quotations for argumentation. Leviticus rejects the idea of a man lying with another man as if he were with a woman. This describes anal sex between men. But this is not about a homosexual relationship. It is about a sexual act that is condemned because it is not considered beneficial to the community. This becomes clear from the context, where, among other things, sexual intercourse with a menstruating, i.e., infertile, woman is also rejected. Narrative literature often refers to Genesis 19. Here, guests who come to the city of Sodom – hence the term sodomy – are to be humiliated through sexual intercourse. Again, this is not about homosexual relationships. Instead, men are to be raped by a group of other men. It is therefore about xenophobic violence. This Bible passage clearly illustrates the connection between sexuality and power. We must address this connection, especially in light of the abuse scandal.”
Authentic traditional is living not fossilised at a particular point of time.
A church that does not develop its thinking in an ecclesial sense is a church that is going backward,” Pope Francis said on the flight back from Canada. “This is today’s problem, and of many who call themselves traditional. No, no, they are not traditional, they are people looking to the past, going backward.” He described this group as “backwardists” (“indietristi”) and quoted the late Jaroslav Pelikan, a historian of Christianity, who once wrote: “Tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.”
The pope is arguing that a true understanding of tradition equips the church to witness to the Gospel in new contexts. True reform is a question of going deeper into the tradition in order to move forward.
"Authentic traditional is living not fossilised at a particular point of time."
Then why do so many people pushing this idea want the liturgy to look like the 1970s?
Nick
Funny, "witnessing the Gospel in new contexts" sure does end up in modernist heresies often enough.
Nick
I don’t think they do, that’s a gross exaggeration / simplification/ mischaracterisation.
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10moath.htm
What’s your qualifications for diagnosing mental illness?
What’s the DSM code for TLMaphobia?
No Latin, no chant, no ad orientem, no altar rail, no missal stand, no Roman vestments, no vesting prayers, no chalice veils, no use of water and wine to purify vessels (as permitted by the GIRM), near-mandatory lay ministers of Holy Communion, mandatory procession of bread and wine at the offertory, mandatory sign of peace, mandatory beginning of the Mass by the lector saying so (no opening bell).
But sure, it's a mischaracterization to compare this to a particular era of typical liturgical practices.
Nick
It gets coded in with homophobia.
Nick
In other words 0.00
Post a Comment