tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post4255123443938538762..comments2024-03-28T05:17:04.006-04:00Comments on southern orders: CATHOLIC FUNDAMENTALISM APPLIED NOT ONLY TO THE SPIRIT OF VATICAN II BUT THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICANFr. Allan J. McDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-74305987925265935382016-03-14T12:14:20.898-04:002016-03-14T12:14:20.898-04:00With Fr. A. It is his German arrogance, snooty VII...With Fr. A. It is his German arrogance, snooty VII fundamentalism, intellectual elitism/clericalism and high strong musician personality combined with being a liturgists which we all know that d<br />The difference between a liturgist and a terrorist is that you can negotiate with a terrorist but not a liturgist! Fr. Allan J. McDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-67225227677462969902016-03-14T09:39:52.571-04:002016-03-14T09:39:52.571-04:00Father Ruff is a standard modern day liberal: narr...Father Ruff is a standard modern day liberal: narrow-minded, authoritarian and tyrannical. He will block you at "Pray Sniff" if you don't buy the party line. Sad, truly sad.TJMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15295786341022051107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-54243858388628341932016-03-14T09:32:13.186-04:002016-03-14T09:32:13.186-04:00One of the tallest tales I heard was how the Mass ...One of the tallest tales I heard was how the Mass came to be said by the priest ad orientem. We were told by a priest that in the big cathedrals in Europe there were altars on every pillar and so some people just happened to end up with the priest not facing them and so it grew from there. He managed to say it with a straight face and I don't recall anyone at the time questioning his version of "how it happened" either. In those days people believed every word the priest said. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-50516351482191460872016-03-13T13:34:40.076-04:002016-03-13T13:34:40.076-04:00Fortunately some of us are historians and not so e...Fortunately some of us are historians and not so easily fooled.John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-20855612964253953322016-03-13T09:45:06.463-04:002016-03-13T09:45:06.463-04:00It has occurred to me that what Fr. Ruff is doing ...It has occurred to me that what Fr. Ruff is doing is very important. A lot of history was being fabricated by the experts to make changes in the liturgy: the scandal of EP II, sacrifices facing the people, what early Christians did or did not do, and so forth. When you do not know history you are easily controlled by those in authority who claim they do. George Orwell (1984) said it well in the face of tyrannical governments: “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” By controlling history you control the minds of the people, even the pope, which is precisely what happened during the reform of the liturgy. Controlling history is not that difficult for people with power since only a fragment of the past is ever known with any certainty. Revisionism is an important tool for this.Victor Wnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-31759090499847987362016-03-12T13:34:56.846-05:002016-03-12T13:34:56.846-05:00The idea that everything since Carolingian times i...The idea that everything since Carolingian times is somehow wrong or corrupted the liturgy/Church sounds perilously close to Luther's position, i.e., that time and change corrupted things. Both are what an American would call a whig view of history, which is hegelian and Marxist in approach.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-4108986688034617412016-03-12T13:00:40.738-05:002016-03-12T13:00:40.738-05:00What strikes me about Ruff's interpretation of...What strikes me about Ruff's interpretation of Vatican II is that the Council itself and then Bl. Paul VI afterwards tend to speak of the Liturgy becoming more accessible, more intelligible, more participatory. They never speak of true participation as being made possible for the very first time since the 8-9 centuries. Of course, Ruff states that his view is only implicit in the document, but then the question may be asked: why is it only implicit if it is so radical? I suspect that the answer would be that if the bishops knew that this was the document's true meaning, then a significant number of them would not vote for it. But then, if that is the case, then implicitly Ruff's view holds that the bishop's didn't know what they were approving. To which I would ask: doesn't that put the council into question then if this is indeed the case? If the Council really did hold the radical position that Ruff presents then why can't it be stated out loud in magisterial documents to expunge all doubt? Again, I suspect that the answer is that to attempt to say it officially entails having to acknowledge and contend with other possible interpretations, and so would require Ruff and friends to have to acknowledge other points of view as legitimate. In this light, the comment policy of Praytell makes sense: ridicule, mockery and disrespect of the other side is tolerated, but challenging the collegeville party line gets you banned. <br />In this bold new church sung into being the key words are control and manipulation. (think of the stunt that Paul Inwood tried to pull with Summorum Pontificum)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-25894532887430415882016-03-12T11:51:52.161-05:002016-03-12T11:51:52.161-05:00What's more he writes this absurd embarrassing...What's more he writes this absurd embarrassing statement: “clerical sacred drama which inspires lay people” is rejected by the Council! Yet this drivel informed the implementation of the 1970 missal! It is the smoke of Satan!Fr. Allan J. McDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-3449827992581426712016-03-12T11:47:07.857-05:002016-03-12T11:47:07.857-05:00Fr Ruff knows a lot about Gregorian Chant but not ...Fr Ruff knows a lot about Gregorian Chant but not a lot about liturgical history. I would dearly like to ask him to provide evidence of a Carolingian rupture (something that progressive liturgists have been peddling for sixty years) but cannot do so since I am automatically barred from his PrayTell blog, and have been for the past four years. John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-12256132120452528442016-03-12T11:39:49.272-05:002016-03-12T11:39:49.272-05:00I'm sure that in practice, the Gloria, Kyrie, ...I'm sure that in practice, the Gloria, Kyrie, Sanctus, Pater Noster and Agnus Dei are sung in Latin in many Ordinariate parishes some or most of the time, just as they would have been when these churches were still part of the Anglican Communion.<br /><br />When I was a student, I occasionally played the organ for masses at Pusey House (Fr John Hunwicke's old stamping ground), and Latin was invariably used there (except for the Credo, which was chanted in English).Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13873507031809422203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-71207819658798063452016-03-12T10:54:30.233-05:002016-03-12T10:54:30.233-05:00Looks like the ivory tower people are getting rest...Looks like the ivory tower people are getting restless in the face of the grass roots "fundamentalism" cornering them. <br /><br />Fr Ruff seems typical of the ivory tower "experts" who made up history stories during the so-called "reform" of the liturgy following the Council. What proof does he have that the Carolingians were responsible for the so-called clerical sacred drama? Jesus Himself was pretty dramatic when, as the High Priest, He said that the simple bread and wine in front of Him was His Body and Blood. Fr Ruff sounds a lot like Luther, if you shift everything a few centuries back, that between the early Christians and the 16th century the Church was totally corrupt, requiring a Protestant Reformation. Perhaps he would be more at peace being a Lutheran, instead of trying to make the True Church Lutheran. But the point is, with so few documents from that past, making up ideologically driven history stories has been easy. <br /> <br />Even so, what is wrong with the Mass as a Sacred Drama with the priest as leader? That would certainly be a positive progress of evolution. His psychological extroversion seems to be affecting his views, since not everyone is comfortable being an actor in a drama, particularly the introverts. The Mass is about the Sacrifice. The faithful go to Mass to obtain spiritual merits from the Sacrifice. Without the Sacrifice, there is no need to go to church. And sacrifice, since the ancient times of Israel, meant a priest in a sanctuary that is separated from the profane world. One cannot get more clerical than that. <br /><br />A large portion of the ivory tower world (the "experts") has had too much influence on the Church. This is something Ratzinger alluded to, even though he himself was comfortable in an ivory tower. Too many in the Church hierarchy are the result of this ivory tower world. After World War II, very many ivory towers in the affluent countries became infected by this affluence. The problem with this today as 50 years ago is that it gives its members the illusion of grandeur, removing them radically further from the thoughts and lives of the ordinary people. After the demise of the mediaeval universities for which Faith sought understanding, the universities of the so-called Enlightenment became Reason seeking understanding. By the 19th century, they were already far removed from the ordinary people. The rational theology of Hegel at the big universities had little in common with those "ignorant" peasants that Kierkegaard admired so much for their spiritual innocence. It seems their ignorance of those "experts" in theology was their spiritual treasure.Victor Wnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-7300824161882319232016-03-12T09:29:27.815-05:002016-03-12T09:29:27.815-05:00Progressives see Vatican II as a second Ascension ...Progressives see Vatican II as a second Ascension and Pentecost. At the Ascension, Jesus finished His instruction, then entrusted the Apostles to speak for Him and implement His commands. But He was no longer on Earth in bodily form to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Pentecost emboldened the apostles and ushered in the Age of the Church, with it's intimate connection with Jesus as both the Bride of Christ and the mystical Body of Christ. <br /><br />Jesus marked continuity and rupture with the past. The heretics like the Gnostics and Marcion saw no connection between the God of the Old Testament and the God preached by, and personified by, Jesus. The orthodox saw that the Old Testament has to be read with the New Testament in mind. The New is contained in the Old and the Old reveals the New. Difficult passages, tedious recitation of geneologies and laws, virtue and vice are interpreted as God's revealing grace. God is knocking off the hard edges on His people's stony hearts to prepare them for The Messiah. The Catholic view is that the Bible is not self-interpreting. That when there's an apparent conflict or dispute (such as the necessity of baptism) the Magesterium has the authority to determine the correct interpretation. <br /><br />In the progressive mind, Vatican II ushered in the age of Newchurch. The fathers at Vatican to wrote their documents and then essentially abdicated in a way not dissimilar to the Ascension. Their inspiration remains but they are no longer around to comfort the afflicted or afflict the comfortable. Instead they established a new magesterium to carry on the mission. The Newchurch crowd disslike expressions of Papal Authority, or authority by any Bishop for that matter, because the Pope and Bishops were supposed to check out after Vatican II. Jesus left His church alone, except for a few visions here and there, after the Ascension and the Newchurch magesterium would appreciate the same courtesy from the Pope.<br /><br />There is continuity and rupture in the eras before and after Vatican II. Heretics would claim that the church prior to Vatican II is a different church than the one that came after. Others will stress continuity and look a the old in light of the new. I would argue that even the "continuity" statement can be taken to far to the point that the previous generations are viewed pitifully as poor savages who tried their best but were unable to achieve the glory of Newchurch liturgy. It's a generational arrogance that defines the 60's and 70's crowd.<br /><br />The documents are not self interpreting. If the documents say retain latin and the Newchurch magesterium interprets that to mean "get rid of Latin except for an occasional Agnus Dei when we feel like slumming it" then that's what it means. The beauty of Newchurch is you don't have to go to seminary for 10 years and work your way up the ladder for 20 years before you get to be part of the new magesterium. You just read NcR, pledge your devotion to Hans Kung, feel "deeply" about something and you're in.<br /><br />After all, why should the people who lived in the First Century have all the fun? The Newchurch group all have PhD's. Shouldn't they get to tell the next generations what to do?GenXBenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15298459502431357489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-84632594360836723092016-03-12T07:42:22.519-05:002016-03-12T07:42:22.519-05:00Indeed, the complex unpredictability of the reform...Indeed, the complex unpredictability of the reformed Mass seems to be more a complication of the Sacred Mysteries than simplification of them. Rood Screenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09816036539243214384noreply@blogger.com