Hold your breath for the next media frenzy: The Latin Mass document is coming
Print Friendly Version| All Things Catholic by John L. Allen, Jr. | |
| Friday, Apr. 20, 2007 - Vol. 6, No. 33 | |
To the growing list of indications that something is imminent with regard to the long-awaited document from Pope Benedict XVI authorizing wider use of the pre-Vatican II Mass, I can add one item this week.
An April 3 letter from Cardinal Walter Kasper, who among other things heads the Vatican's Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with Jews, responds to concerns from the International Council of Christians and Jews about the pre-Vatican II Mass, in light of controversial passages it contains regarding Judaism. The last sentence of Kasper's letter, the text of which I have, is the key line: "While I do not know what the pope intends to state in his final text, it is clear that the decision that has been made cannot now be changed."
Kasper's language clearly indicates that something definitive has happened. It adds to the confirmation given by the Vatican's Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, on March 31 that a motu proprio from Benedict XVI, meaning a document under the pope's personal authority, on the pre-Vatican II Mass is coming.
Catholic publishers in Rome, anticipating the pope's decision, have already begun preparing new editions of the pre-Vatican II Mass books, called the "1962 Missal" because that was the last year prior to the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) in which an official liturgical book according to the old rite was issued.
Anyone who has ventured into the Catholic blogosphere recently is aware that speculation about the motu proprio has been at a fever pitch for months. One wag has even posted a list of the Top Ten signs that someone is in the grip of "motu-mania," including: "You have a calendar with all the likely feast days that the motu proprio might be issued marked," and, "You have written 500 blog posts, and 480 of them have been about the motu proprio."
In part, the frenzy has been stoked by a series of over-anxious news reports containing rumored release dates. A partial list includes October 2006, March 2007 (in conjunction with the pope's exhortation for the Synod on the Eucharist), Holy Thursday, and this past April 16 (Benedict's 80th birthday). The hot tip now is April 30, the feast of St. Pius V on the Roman calendar, or May 5, the feast of Pius V on the older calendar.
At the risk of raining on the "motu-mania" parade, however, it's worth noting that many experts believe this breathless anticipation will, in the long run, seem excessive in terms of the document's real-world impact.
For one thing, more than 40 years after the council, many priests are unfamiliar with the pre-Vatican II rite and may not rush to celebrate it even if authorized to do so -- if not for theological reasons, simply because they're already stretched too thin. For another, it's not clear how much pent-up demand for the pre-Vatican II Mass actually exists. Many Catholics enthusiastic for the old Mass already have access to it, in parishes and religious orders who celebrate the old Mass under the terms of a 1984 indult from the Vatican.
Most bishops, pastors and liturgical experts whom I've polled believe that with or without the motu proprio, the normal liturgical experience for the overwhelming majority of Catholics will continue to be the post-Vatican II Mass in the vernacular language. Estimates vary, but many say that they expect no more than one or two percent of Catholics worldwide to routinely attend the pre-Vatican II rite, even if they were given ready access to it.
As one American bishop put it to me, "We wouldn't have spent the last decade sweating blood over a new English translation of the Mass if we didn't think this was going to be the normal liturgical experience for most of our people."
Further, the motu proprio is unlikely to do much, at least in the short term, to end the break between Rome and the followers of the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The traditionalist Society of St. Pius X, founded by Lefebvre, claims roughly one million adherents worldwide, and trying to heal this rupture has been a top priority of both John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
Anyone who knows the leadership of the Society of St. Pius X realizes that the older Mass is merely one element of more sweeping reservations about the council. Above all, many traditionalists object to the council's teaching on religious freedom, ecumenism and inter-religious relations. Bishop Bernard Fellay, head of the Society of St. Pius X, has stated that he wants the pope to acknowledge a formal "right of dissent" from the teaching of Vatican II on these points. By itself, the motu proprio will not solve these problems.
In other words, the motu proprio may end up as a classic instance of one of those Vatican documents that unleashes a torrent of debate and commentary, but changes relatively little on the ground.
Be that as it may, there's no doubt the motu proprio will be a media sensation, because the older Mass has become the most potent symbol of tensions over the basic direction of the Catholic Church in the period since the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). In the court of broad public opinion, expanded access to the pre-Vatican II rite will be interpreted as a victory for the church's traditionalist wing, however the Vatican explains it.
Among the debates certain to swirl is a set of concerns regarding Jewish-Christian relations. The exchange between Kasper and the International Council of Christians and Jews, based in Germany, illustrates what's at stake.
Servite Fr. John Pawlikowski, an American, wrote to Kasper on March 29 on behalf of the executive body of the International Council of Christians and Jews. Pawlikowski, an expert in Catholic/Jewish relations at the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, told Kasper that although the phrase "perfidious Jews" was lifted from the pre-Vatican II Mass by Pope John XXIII, the older Mass still contains other prayers for Jews, Muslims and other Christians that Pawlikowski called "profoundly demeaning."
"The expanded validation of such prayers," Pawikowski argued, "will rightly challenge Catholic integrity in terms of the proclamations of the last four decades," meaning advances in ecumenical and inter-faith relations, especially with Jews.
Pawlikowski's letter does not specify which prayers in the 1962 Missal his group finds objectionable. A Web site sponsored by the Center for Christian-Jewish Understanding at Boston College, however, offers a background document on the older Mass, along with a critical statement from a "Jews and Christians" group of the Central Committee of German Catholics. The two texts cite concerns widely voiced by experts in Catholic-Jewish relations.
For example, the Good Friday litrugy contains a prayer "For the conversion of the Jews," which reads: "Let us pray also for the Jews, that the Lord our God may take the veil from their hearts and that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ. … Almighty and everlasting God, You do not refuse Your mercy even to the Jews; hear the prayers which we offer for the blindness of that people so that they may acknowledge the light of Your truth, which is Christ, and be delivered from their darkness."
The background document on the Boston College site asserts that the prayer is problematic.
"The references to 'even the Jews,' 'their darkness,' and 'blindness' and for their conversion runs counter to the respect for ongoing Jewish covenantal life throughout historic time that was expressed in Nostra Aetate, 4," it says, referring to the Vatican II document on Judaism and other religions. "Similar problems might be found elsewhere in the Missal simply because it was uninformed by subsequent developments in Catholic understanding."
The document from the German group highlights other objections.
"The pre-conciliar Roman Missal is inseparably connected to the old lectionary," it states. "In its sequence of about 60 diverse formularies for the celebration of Mass for Sundays and holy days, there is no reading from the Old Testament for each Sunday, except in only three cases … This is blatant Marcionism, which devalues the first part of the two-part Christian Bible -- namely the Bible of Israel -- to insignificance."
The German group also questions the underlying worldview of the old Mass.
"Its theology and spirituality … contradicts much that was theologically central to the Second Vatican Council," it says. "This concerns, not least, the unique relationship between the Church and Judaism (see Lumen Gentium, 16 and Nostra Aetate, 4)."
These points, experts say, illustrate the reservations about the 1962 Missal at which Pawlikowski's letter hints.
In his brief reply, Kasper told Pawlikowski that he had already discussed such concerns with Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, head of the Vatican's Ecclesia Dei Commission which oversees use of the older Mass. Castrillon is a driving force behind the new motu proprio.
Kasper writes that he expressed the concerns of "many people engaged in the Jewish-Christian dialogue" to Castrillon.
"After a long conversation, it was reiterated that the use of the Missal does not represent principally a new situation," Kasper writes, "insofar as its use has been permitted over time in particular cases."
Kasper said he's not entirely sure what might be done about sensitive passages regarding Jews.
"The 1962 Missal does not have the term 'perfidious Jews.' I was unable to obtain a clear answer," Kasper writes, "with regard to the prayer for the Jews."
Kasper then closes with the sentence quoted above about the pope's decision no longer being open to debate.
Whatever form Benedict's final decision takes, the kinds of controversies reflected in this exchange will continue -- even if most Catholics, on most Sundays and in most parishes around the world, remain blissfully unaffected by them.
| Archives | Signup for Weekly E-mail |
Great article. But one
Great article. But one question. Does one have to be a traditonal extremist to love the Tridentine Mass? Is it not in keeping with the spirit of authentic diversity enegndered by the council that this beautiful rite should be fostered? It seems that for us to be truly Catholic, we must draw from the very best that each generation has to offer. And the tridentine MAss executed properly, is truly a gem!
It puzzles me that some of the people msot opposed ot thsi motu proprio are the very peopel who desire more open-mindedness and diversity in the church. And if you're progressive... think about how you could leverage this. perhaps by sneaking women in as subdeacons at solemn high Mass???
I consider myself to be both a liberal and traditional Catholic. The beauty of the Tridentine Rite speaks for itself. Where the Novus Ordo is guilty of the very clericalism it sought to evade, this Rite makes the priest an impersonal proxy for Christ in what is nothign short of a breath-taking cosmic drama. That is one reason why the liberal in me loves this Rite. There are many other reasons to love it. Just as there are many reasons to love the novus Ordo. A chruch open to true diversity, will lovingly accpet both!!
Also has anyone thoguht abotu the benefit of wider use of the Tridentine Rite for our realtiosn with the orthodox? The fact is, even a thoughtful Orthodox observer of the Roman Rite--- as it is carried out in many parishes , wtihwith excessive austerity or a clear affintiy for trensd in american protestantism-- would be hard-pressed to see in it a sense of the sacred mysteries that he is familiar with. The Tridentine Rite on the other hand imparts the same sense of reverence found int he Eastern liturgies.
One final obsrvation. For many Catholics like me, born many years after the end of the council, the distinction between the post-conciliar and pre-conciliar church are unhelpful and dissatisfying. As a young Catholic I want a heritage, jsut like native Americans want to claim their heritage. I refuse to beleive that my heritage is exhausted by Marty Haugen's Mass of Creation. To insist that this is the case is nothing short of institutionalized sin (just like telling native Americans that their heritage has no role in the Mass woudl be!).
Am i to believe that the spirituality of the preconciliar churhc--- apparently quite different from the spirituality oif today-- is not worth preserving? I guess this would entail that we cast out the marvelous examples of saints born from this bankrupt spirituality.
The pre-concilair/post-conciliar dichotomy needs to be abandoned. Yet it is perpetuated by the very people who claim to embrase the "both/and" over the "either/or" mentality. In the end we need to judge practices and dsiciplines by their fruit and not by the merits of the ideologies that spawned them. If the Tridentine Mass helps to encoruage vocations, promote a better udnerstanding of the eucharist, and helps in the "reform of the reform" of the novus ordo... well then, no further case need be made. I think these are likely fruits of the coming motu proprio
One thing John Allen’s
One thing John Allen’s column and the comments make clear is that there has been a variety of normative liturgies in the history of Christianity and of the Roman Catholic Church. This context is important for understanding any liturgical change, including the pending broader availability of the pre-Vatican II liturgy.
For the most traditionalist Catholics, the old Latin Mass—developed over roughly a thousand years and adopted officially by the Council of Trent—was “THE Mass.” It was absolute and unsurpassable. They deny the authority of the world’s bishops at Second Vatican Council to replace it, and they resent the bishops for doing so. They will try to spin the Vatican statement as vindication of their long-suffering dissent.
But it will not be. Instead, by making the old Latin Mass more available as an alternative to the vernacular eucharistic prayers, the Vatican will reinforce the fact that the church has always had, and will always have, multiple normative liturgies—and that all of them are subject to being revised, supplemented or replaced as the Christian community discovers better ways of doing liturgy (e.g., ways that improve worshippers’ ability to love God and neighbor, and that better articulate and promote the best that theologians have achieved).
I made this point in a posting on my blog July 17, 2006, “A Better Way to Change Catholic Liturgical Language.” (The blog address is at the end of these comments.) At that time the issue was the U.S. bishops preparing to make some changes to the liturgical English that Catholics in the U.S. have recited for over three decades. Like the adherents of the old Latin Mass, some weekly church goers will not like the bishops’ changes.
Just as the church could have been less draconian about restricting the old Latin Mass, so too with the newer revisions, it could continue to make the 30-year old English version available as an alternative to those who prefer it. I also had two larger points in mind.
First, it is not essential to the identity and survival of the church that its liturgical practice be identical around the globe. It is important that there be normative language and that it be repeated more than any alternatives. But making versions of the liturgy available which used to be normative and since have been surpassed does not detract from the current normative liturgy. On the contrary, while upholding the normative liturgy as the one which the church currently prefers, it emphasizes that there can be many authentic ways of commemorating the works and life of the Risen Lord and his presence with us today—and that no one version of eucharistic celebration can ever be treated as final or absolute.
Second, because liturgy can always be improved, the church can and should allow times and places where those who want to propose new liturgical language and practice can try them with willing congregations, in the hope that such experiences will lead to better normative language and practice down the road.
This was allowed for a period of time after Vatican II, when liturgical experts published experimental eucharistic prayers that followed the structure of the approved ones but offered language and rituals that many small congregations found more beautiful and more inspirational than the official language.
Unfortunately, Rome pretty much suppressed such experimentation, and the more conservative church goers made sure that violators were reported to the hierarchy. As a result the church is left to rely largely on non-Catholic Christians to test the effectiveness of liturgical innovations and improvements.
So a greater availability of the Latin Mass cannot be used to absolutize it or any version of the eucharistic liturgy. But it can be the occasion to remember again that alternatives to the normative language can be a healthy expression of religious humility and devotion—and that the alternatives should include not only older liturgies that have been replaced but also authorized experiments that can lead eventually to surpassing the liturgies that are normative today.
These thoughts are part of a longer post at http://creativeadvance@blogspot.com
Paul George Dear "monkey3",
Paul George
Dear "monkey3", I don't know what Vatican II documents you are talking about, but I know of one that has most explicitly apologized for anti-Semitism and hatred of Jews. I'm referring to the "Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions" (1965), # 4. Here is the text according to the Abbott translation: "THE CHURCH REPUDIATES ALL PERSECUTIONS AGAINST ANY MAN (sic!). MOREOVER, MINDFUL OF HER COMMON PATRIMONY WITH THE JEWS, AND MOTIVATED BY THE GOSPEL'S SPIRITUAL LOVE AND BY NO POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS, SHE DEPLORES THE HATRED, PERSECUTIONS AND DISPLAYS OF ANTI-SEMITISM DIRECTED AGAINST THE JEWS AT ANY TIME AND FROM ANY SOURCE."
This is the "spirit" of Vatican II, displayed in a wonderful manner by JPII when he placed a letter at the Western Wall (Jerusalem) seven years ago. This is the content of the letter:
God of our fathers,
You chose Abraham and his descendants
to bring your Name to the Nations:
we are deeply saddened
by the behaviour of those
who in the course of history
have caused these children of yours to suffer,
and asking your forgiveness
we wish to commit ourselves
to genuine brotherhood
with the people of the Covenant.
Jerusalem 26, March 2000
Signed: John Paul II
Paul George The
Paul George
The International Theological Commission's conclusion that "limbo" be abolished does not seem to go far enough. If children are born with original sin and if baptism is not indispensable to wash it away to enable persons to enjoy eternal happiness, a whole new understanding of original sin is called for.
First of all, we must stop using the word "sin" in relation to human birth. Instead, we need to acknowledge that human birth is indeed an "original blessing." The use of the word "sin" must be reserved to indicate deliberate rebellion against God and God's mercy.
What about those holy persons who died without receiving baptism, that is, before Christ? What about persons who, even after Christ, lead a morally upright life according to their conscience but are not baptized? Are they deprived of eternal happiness?
So, when the Pope issues a document on "limbo" hopefully he will broaden the topic of discussion to include an updated and more accurate theological consideration on universal salvation, as Vatican II has taught us.
Dear Paul, a theology of
Dear Paul, a theology of "Original Blessing" to replace the unfortunate misunderstanding of *original sin*! How wonderful. This encounter is a great way to start my day as I think also about John's Jesus as the Good Shepherd. Thank you for it. The whole idea of how we are able to recognize the Shepherd's Voice and WHO WE BECOME WHEN WE DO IT is such an amazing grace that I usually am breathless when I think about it. But, of course! This is possible in Jesus the Christ because of that "Original Blessing" given to us in Christ's Resurrection (Romans 6 & 8 and especially 2 Cor. 5:21) -"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."
We are fulfilled and made possible as the righteousness of God in Christ FROM THE "ORIGINAL BLESSING" of Life given by the Great Lover of Souls and Creator of all; by that Great Giver of Life! An Original Blessing, indeed!! Thank you so much for naming it for me today.
God's peace be with you.
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen." (Luke 24:5)
Going back to the "true" and
Going back to the "true" and "original" liturgy has always reminded me a bit of the problem of irredentism: where does the process stop? If we want to return the land to its "original" owners, do we search for the descendants of what Brian Sykes calls the Clan of Ursula and hand Europe back to them? Or to the Neanderthals who preceded them?
What IS the true and original liturgy? How was liturgy practiced in the period in which the New Testament documents were being written? And did it differ in its practices from place to place?
Why should we implicitly stop history and canonize one moment--the council of Trent--as THE moment at which everything became true and perfect? If the point is not to go forward, but to go back to the true originating moment, I'd be interested to know if anyone has determined what that moment is, and why it's true and originating?
Otherwise, it seems to me history moves in a forward direction....
William D. Lindsey
Following William, I would
Following William, I would ask "what is liturgy?" Is there an "original" and "true" liturgy. "Liturgy" itself is (religious)theatre. Liturgy is putting on costume and formally expressing a concept, belief, value or practice
or enacting a representation of an event.
Roman Catholics don't own the term, nor is it reserved internally to Eucharist. With respect to Eucharist, Catholics believe in faith that the "performance" efficaciously re-presents the central elements of belief as Christ pre-presented these elements just prior to His death. My suggestion therefore is that there is only one original and true liturgy- the last meal Jesus shared with his intimates.
Roman Catholic Christians believe that the (specific) liturgy of the Eucharist admits participants into that (Thursday) liturgical act of Christ and its effect of preempting (pre-enacting)His own death (Friday) and return to life (Sunday)and continued presence. So, if there is an original and true Eucharistic liturgy it is the Last Supper. In this case the "performance" re-presents the event (incarnated in words and actions, in performance) and its value, intent, and consequences (efficacy).
This reality, I believe places a tremendous responsibility on the Church and thus, an equally tremendous freedom to re-present the reality and intent in a way or ways that appropriately and effectively link the souls of the faith community in time and place with Christ's liturgy.
Elsewhere I contend that Christ becoming human, in time and place is the ultimate vernacular. I doubt that it was His intent that it stop there.
In Eucharistic Prayer C of
In Eucharistic Prayer C of Rite II of the Episcopal liturgy (BCP 372) there are contained a very important couple of phrases. These are:
"Open our eyes to see your hand at work in the world about us. DELIVER US FROM THE PRESUMPTION OF COMING TO THIS TABLE FOR SOLACE ONLY, AND NOT FOR STRENGTH; FOR PARDON ONLY, AND NOT FOR RENEWAL. ..."
The PURPOSE of liturgy, like the purpose of all Christian Life is to given glory to God NOT ONLY IN THE MOMENT but as a continuing offering of ourselves at the Eucharist, in the community of disciples, and in the world.
Another beautiful phrase comes from Eucharistic Prayer II of Rite I of the Episcopal Church (BCP 342):
"And we earnestly desire thy fatherly goodness to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, whereby we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, OURSELVES, OUR SOULS AND BODIES ..."
Rites I and II are contained in the very same Book of Common Prayer to make room for both orthodox and reformed members of our communion within the broad reach of our catholic church, yet all of the liturgical theology express the core belief: Give Glory to God and What You Pray insofar as What You Pray Forms What You DO. All of our liturgical theology as reflected in our Eucharistic Prayers aims at the wonderful multiplicity of beings and doings that pray:
"... that all whom partake of this Holy Communion may worthily receive the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son Jesus Christ, and be filled with thy grace and heavenly benediction; and also that we ALL and thy whole Church may be made one with him, that he may dwell in us and we in him; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord;
By whom and with whom, and in whom, in the unity of the Holy Ghost all honor and glory be unto thee, O Father Almighty, world without end. AMEN"
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen." (Luke 24:5)
Dennis, wonderful sentences:
Dennis, wonderful sentences: "Elsewhere I contend that Christ becoming human, in time and place is the ultimate vernacular. I doubt that it was His intent that it stop there."
What you make me realize in a new way is that the Incarnation itself has built into an impetus for constant movement towards ongoing incarnation--of faith and values in constantly changing cultural contexts, which demand constantly changing expressions of core beliefs and values, as well as constantly changing ways of practicing the theater of worship in different cultural contexts.
William D. Lindsey
As to the vernacular, Hebrew
As to the vernacular, Hebrew would have been the language used at that meal, but not the common tongue of the region. Jewish tradition has been holding on to their sacred language for millenia.
It is very very sad news
It is very very sad news that the Holy Father has permitted this rite without consultation with his brother Bishops & ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority have accepted the New Mass or the Paul the VI mass.The very very small group that wants this mass are usually a superstitious lot who are ignorant of church history.First of all the Tridentine Mass is not a "traditional Mass" but a mass of Pius V after the council of Trent.Vatican II tried to restore the Mass to it^s rightful begginnings.In the 19th & early 20th centuries liturgical scholarship flourished & provided a better understanding on the history of the liturgy.Scholars discovered that the Mass celebrated in the early church was much more primitive & simpler & different in characteristics from the Trent Mass.The earlier mass had a Deacon,reader & acolyte that Vatican II restored.The Mass of Vatican II restored a ancient element missing from the liturgy from the days of Gregory 1.This was the Intecessory prayers concluding the Liturgy Of The Word described by Justin the Martyr in 150 A.D. It sought participation from the laity because they ARE THE CHURCH.The church is the whole people of God not just the clergy or Pope as Vatican II taught in Lumen Gentium & the Pastoral Constitution of the Church In The Modern World.This concept too was prominent in the early days. I hate to say it but JP II & Pope Benedict have been amongst one of the most divisive Popes in history by avoiding Vatican II^s teaching on collegiality & Vatican II ^s call for the church to be Semper Reformandum(always in need of Reform).You have a Vatican still stuck in many ways in medieval times with the church at large looking the other way.
May I ask how your first two
May I ask how your first two points are relevant? The Church is a theocracy, not a democracy, polls of bishops or the laity are not necessarily indicators of the best path for the Church (remember that Golden Calf incident?)
The group that wants the Tridentine Mass primarily (here in America, at least) is dwarfed by those who want access to it more widespread, particularly by those who follow the "reform of the reform" movement. The core of the Tridentine Mass was in the various Roman and Gallican Rites, dating back in substantial parts to as early as the fourth century (including the entire Canon). Trent imposed a uniformity on the liturgy, but wrote very little (if any) of that text itself. Vatican II, specifically Scrosanctum Concilium, did not try to restore the primitive Mass, but to introduces limited but necessary reforms to the 1962 Roman Missal. You might try reading your sources before criticizing others scholarship. Nor is Archbishop Bungingi's composition the Mass of Vatican II (every mass celebrated during the Council and for four years following it was according to the Tridentine Rite, either the 1962 Missal or the 1965 transitional Missal).
Somehow I doubt the hero of the reform of the reform movement is ignoring the call to alway be reforming, rather it is those who want to keep the status quo because people have accepted it that are opposed to real reform.
"Here today" writes, "The
"Here today" writes, "The Church is a theocracy, not a democracy." This is just a bit extreme. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a theocracy. A few political connections are missing for the Church to be a theocracy.
If the governance of the
If the governance of the Church is to be likened to any model of secular government, it is to a theocracy (rule by clergy according to religious rule, rule in the name of a deity) rather than a democracy (majority rule). I was responding to a poster who was lamenting that the Pope appears to be willing to buck the majority to do what he believes is best for the salvation of souls.
Strictly speaking, of course, you are correct, a religion cannot be a theocracy, a monarchy, perhaps? But Catholicism is definitely not a democracy.
Yes, the Church relates most
Yes, the Church relates most closely with (Catholic) (benign) monarchy. It is with monarchies that it has enjoyed itself the most, and with whom Church bureaucracy works most easily. It doesn't have to struggle so much to explain itself, and it can count on the protective nature of a benign monarchy to provide the social welfare state and protective legislation that the Church needs for catholic culture to make sense as a whole structure.
The order of the Mass of
The order of the Mass of Pius V dates to as early as the fifth century. Pius V didn't invent the Tridentine Mass out of nothing in the sixteenth century. Further, why is the "primitive & simpler" early Church a benchmark for today's liturgical practice? The irony is that the new theology argues, on the one hand, that the liturgy must keep up with the times and be suited to modern tastes and, on the other, that it ought to return to a largely fetishized model of the early Church. But why is the "early Church" supposed to be compatible with modern tastes? It's just as easy to claim that the new liturgy is "stuck in primitive times" and unsuited to modern people as it is to say that the traditional Mass is "stuck in medieval times." Then again, perhaps it's better to return to medieval times. After all, the Middle Ages produced Innocent III and Saint Thomas. Finally, the notion that the Church is "always in need of reform" conflicts with Paul VI's description of the Church as "conservative of her message." The role of the popes and bishops is to preserve and transmit the doctrines that Christ handed to the apostles. They're caretakers of the Church, not inventors or innovators.
Fiona, Scotland I am
Fiona, Scotland
I am astonished at how many commentators above think that the SSPX are in schism. Unbelievable. The Vatican has made very clear on a number of occasions recently that they are not and never have been in schism. That Pope John Paul II pronounced an excommunication on Archbishop Lefebvre says more about him than it does about Archbishop Lefebvre. Pope John Paul II , recall, has protected (and even promoted!) prelates (I'm thinking here of Cardinal Law) who, many think should have languished in prison for their defence of abuser-priests. He's not excommunicated any of the heretics and other scandal mongers dotted around the world (not least in my homeland of Scotland, despite our repeated - unanswered - pleas for help). JPII will surely go down as one of the worst Popes in history. Clearly, the breakneck speed at which attempts are being made to canonise him represent nothing more than a desperate shot at trying to validate the shocking state of the Church during his watch and a less vigilant watch there has never been. So, please, stop perpetuating the lie that the SSPX are in schism. Only the truly ignorant still think that and if you can find a respected Canon Lawyer who believes that the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre was valid, I'll eat my bagpipes.
Can you put a video of you
Can you put a video of you eating the bagpipes on youtube?
Peter Vere and Ed Peters apparently think its valid, and notes that it was not JPII (who I don't think is as great as many do, but deserves more respect, as Pope, than you give him) who excommunicated him, but that the excommunications were latae sententiae, under canons 1382 and 1364 § 1. This was declared by the Congregation of Bishops. The following day it was confirmed by the Pope.
The question of schism seems to be open: while various sources have said that the SSPX is not in schism, the act of ordaining bishops against express instructions from Rome is a "refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff". Their refusal to regularize their situation seems to be a refusal "of communion with the members of the Church subject to him". Those two phrases are the canonical definition of schism (CIC 715). Given that the excommunications were given under 1364 § 1 (for heresy, apostacy, or schim) it seems that at least the bishops of the SSPX are in schism. The condition of their priests is less certain: they were illicitly ordained (by excommunicated/schismatic bishops), so it would seem that in some part they would also be in schism. For the faithful who attend their chapels, however, there is little case (for the most part) for any charge, as many do not adhere to the schism, but only seek a reverent Mass.
While schism may not be a perfect term to describe the situation of the SSPX as a whole, it largely fits and no other term is truly applicable.
Maybe they're just uber
Maybe they're just uber dissenters rather than schismatic.
In any case they would be in the same class as the 'tree worshipping invalidly ordained priestesses.' (paraphrasing one of your traditional colleagues from another thread). Illicit ordination against the expressed wishes of the Papacy is after all illicit ordination, no matter if it's done by the left or right.
In the interests of collegiality I say call them all uber dissenters. Schismatic is such an ugly, divisive term.
It would not be collegiality
It would not be collegiality but more akin to false ecumenism. I do agree that we should use the same term for both sides if it fits (and it does). Of course there tends to be less heresy on the extreme right (although they do have that odd view of being able to dismiss an ecumenical council). The situation you describe though is significantly different in that the case of attempted ordination of priestesses you do not have validly but illicitly ordained priests.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and schism by any other name is just as divisive.
yes, isn't it interesting
yes, isn't it interesting how the definitions and interpretations shift around here...wasn't long ago that HT decided that those who were members of CTA were likely schismatic even though there's no ordinations involved--usually pretty important in these matters--and only one bishop on the bubble with one chapter of them besides, but these folks are not at all in a bad spot (they're only reverent) even though there are ordinations involved, and formal declarations made. My head is spinning again with all these "new" interpretations of events (is that called 'spin'?). What's a poor old catholic to do? I must just not be smart enough to keep up with the reform of the reform--they are all so smart and holy besides...
On one hand we have illicit
On one hand we have illicit ordinations to the Episcopate, contrary to express command of the Pope. Automatic excommunication. They hold (for the most part) to the Catholic faith, a few of them may also be heretics vis a vis denying an ecumenical council. So we have schism and cases of heresy.
On the other hand we have a blatant rejection of the teaching authority of the Church, and much of the Catholic faith. So we have broad adherence to heresy and, by way of that heresy, de facto schism.
Which is the worse schismatic act? Illicit (but valid) ordinations or heresy?
Both are in a bad spot (or did you miss my defense of both the schism charge and excommunications of SSPX?) It is odd that we tend to regard those who have more in common with orthodox Catholic teaching as lepers, but those who have fundamental differences with Catholic teaching are hailed as heroes.
I am neither particularly smart or holy (and my physique is none too impressive either), but I am trying on both counts.
As you already know, I don't
As you already know, I don't hold anyone as lepers, and would seem to accept those with differences better. I don't try to run anyone out of the Church for any reason, since it seems to me that Jesus wants all to come in and be ministered to...and that a lifetime of sacramental experience may be what changes someone's heart. I don't understand, in relation to the gospels, the belief that people have to be in some specified place before they're allowed to participate when participation may bring them to the place...but that does allow God to act without following all the rules put on him. Nor did I take anyone (I guess on the liberal "side") and turn them into heroes.
As you know, I've been involved in a rather long and gentle discussion that began from the CTA issue, and have yet to see a reason why what they talk about can be considered "heresy." That's just political spin, from anything that I see so far. People in the generation before mine (the "greatest generation") also talked about the changes needed in Church thought and teachings; they just did it more quietly, which is really the issue here. I think if the catholic scene were quiescent, you would find these conversations much more acceptable and even interesting, than that everyone felt so free to think and speak and write their thoughts. In other words, I think you believe that a certain elite are free-er to think than that everyone is. Vatican II was not generated by spontaneous combustion, although I can see why it felt that way to some people. Most of the Church just opened their windows and doors at the same time for once, then didn't slam them back shut. And then didn't respond quite the same when the messenger began spreading the word that it was time to close the windows and doors again. Or, closed the door and left the windows cracked. Or....
*sigh* Again, its a general
*sigh* Again, its a general comment, Annie. 'We' as in the Church in general, the Church in America and Europe in particular.
Nor have I tried to run of those who are not in full communion with the Church (ie, Star, Dr McCoy, Marie R), but ignoring de facto schism wherever it may be has not helped the Church over the past few decades.
The climate that required Vatican II had been brewing for years, at least since the 1930's. The wave of radical changes that started after the Council are proof of this, as I have noted before. But that wave of changes also changed the dialogue. A psychological break from the past, these changes became the rallying point for both sides: one hand arguing they went too far (SSPX) and the other not far enough (CTA). If the discussion could take place without the activism, then yes, it would be more acceptable. If it were limit by the boundaries that held it back before the Council, then it would be more fruitful. Alas, we cannot escape the present conditions that strain discussion.
I do not think that a certain elite are freer to think, but that few are willing to curb their thoughts at the boundaries of Catholic faith. Those attempting to stay within the boundaries of Catholicism are freer because they allow that they are not the ultimate authority. But those who insist on taking their thoughts outside Catholicism would find that they would not have to languish as 'second class citizens' if they took their bodies with their thoughts to another church. (I know, sensitive topic for many here, I don't want to rehash it, but it is what it is).
Annie and here today, For
Annie and here today,
For the most part, we can assume that the large and powerful official Catholic Church will continue to support the changes that were made with Vatican II and not capitulate to the various points to which SSPX holds that go beyond the preservation of the Latin. Ressurecting the Latin Mass will not satisfy SSPX, but may draw away from SSPX those who have an affinity for the aesthetic of the Latin Mass. Thus, it could be that when the current holdouts at SSPX pass on that this official division will be ended.
Other divisions, though, are likely to occur when one side of an issue tells the other, essentially, "love it or leave it" as Vatican II effectively did to those who did not agree with the changes. I don't think the boundaries of the Catholic faith have ever been that precisely defined, but, especially since the documentation of Canon Law and the Catechism have been made widely available, people have the impression that the boundaries are absolute. Now, everyone thinks he or she is an expert because these documents are so readable. However, rather than using them as guidelines for their own conduct, people often use (misuse, in my opinion) them as weaponry against those whose interpretations differ from theirs.
Consider that prior to Vatican II, I practically would have been forced into the Catholic Church in order to marry my husband without any concern as to whether I really accepted everything the Catholic Church teaches as true. It would have been the call of the parish priest and would have depended upon where, in his opinion, I stood compared to his interpretation of the boundaries of Catholicism. His interpretation likely would have been tempered by his having been trained to carry out this burden of judgment with an awareness of God's tolerance and ready forgiveness. Given that those who avail themselves of Catholicism's documentation to direct others fail to exercise their newfound power with an overriding deference to Christ's teaching, I often think I am witnessing a Catholic version of "The Sorcerer's Apprentice".
I think the document on the issue of the Latin Mass will express an opinion on the part of the pope that is similar to mine. I think it will be an example intended to demonstrate that the Church is more inclusive than most people have been willing to allow.
Your own story is a good
Your own story is a good example of a long-standing point I've tried to make on here, Marie, that people become catholic for a multitude of reasons, some as "voluntary" as marriage issues and whole nations being baptized at the order of someone in authority. Or, as with most of us, an infant baptism. This new idea that we should leave the church if we don't agree with some long list of "beliefs" at whatever level of definition or priority the church (and usually more so, some members or group of members) have given to something at some particular point in time is itself un-catholic. That problem was supposed to be resolved in acceptance of the creed, oh, way back then.
On top of that, suddenly one must use the right same words, think the same philosophical system, use the same language, privilege the same people, etc. While it is frustrating to some in the church not to have control over everyone's beliefs all the time, that's the 'c'est la vie' of catholic religion. If you go for bigger, you aren't suddenly going to get smaller. Sometimes people choose lives that include promises of obedience to certain things (they can even sign statements if that's what they want), but most of us don't. We live out our faith in freedom, based on relationship with the Lord and informed by the teachings of his church.
I agree with you on the likelihood that the pope will hold an opinion similar to your own, more inclusive than many people have been willing to allow. He's been trying to re-create an atmosphere of more open dialogue than the one he helped create under JPII. May just be that he was never quite in the place he was creating previously, but more serving the last pope and not really expecting to live with the consequences of tighter thought boundaries. He's expressed his own frustration with having cardinals and bishops unwilling to debate issues, with too tight "boundaried" thinking as his consultants and shared decision-makers.
While I can sorta see what you (and others) are saying about V2 "effectively" telling people who didn't agree with the changes to "love it or leave it", that was so much not the spirit of the council that I have a problem with it being said that simply. The Council was so long overdue it just started spilling out. There was no sense in my own experience of anyone wanting anyone to leave; perhaps too much assumption that the authority of a council would be enough for everyone to get on board. The people who most follow authority deciding that their own authority should prevail was perhaps not the outcome anticipated. Sometimes the church moves so slowly that it is not likely that problems and lessons learned in a previous council could possibly seem likely to re-occur. But change is simply hard sometimes. I'm all for patience and kindness prevailing in our church life together. (I'm not sure what the sorcerer's apprentice is about, but I'll take your word for it and most likely, given the title, agree!).
It really is the situation
It really is the situation that those who most follow authority decided that they would not follow the authority that instituted Vatican II rather than having been told to leave it if they disagreed. However, given their likely understanding of the nature of authority, they probably saw it as an ultimatum. The issue of the Latin Mass is most symbolic of this situation, because Latin was not permitted lest the vernacular not be instituted as a result; had Latin been permitted, it seems unlikely that the vernacular would have developed into the thing of beauty that it is now, which is no longer threatened by permitting Latin, but, better yet, is likely to be enhanced further by incorporating some of the Latin elements.
So far as the sorcerer's apprentice reference goes, it relates to having the knowledge that gives power, but not having the wisdom to exercise this power properly. When I read the Catechism, it often seems to me to be an affirmation of what I have determined to be true from experience. I found it personally useful in that way. It never occurred to me to use it to predetermine my actions or to intimidate others into following what I have determined to be the best course, but this is what a lot of people do with it--including some bishops. When people do this--try to control life by controlling what they and other do (perhaps trying to eliminate the need to look to God for forgiveness and help in determining and doing God's will)--things continue to go wrong but on a much larger and less controllable scale--nothing God can't handle, though.
Not sure I'll have time for
Not sure I'll have time for decent response(s) today, HT, but do let me say quickly that I don't feel like a "second class citizen" at all in the church in relation to the perhaps-forced dichotomy of "traditionalist-liberals" used on these threads. Some of us function mostly outside that division, and I've always felt that I do in my sacramental relationship with priests and people. I sometimes feel like there's a group that would like me to feel like a second class citizen, since I have been in sitations where a 'traditionalist' group was working overtime to construct a 'liberal' group to fight with...except that liberals don't group in the same way, so it was mostly one group fighting with windmills I guess. The traditionalist group seemed to mostly be really frustrated that the liberals didn't seem interested in 'meeting 'em in the back alley." I'm really quite happy in my present situation.
You have such urgency in some of your writing that it seems to affect the reader--when that is me--perhaps very differently than you may expect. I don't think you really understand (but perhaps you do) how you sound sometimes since you don't really face people on here telling you you don't belong in your own church, since 'liberals' don't usually suggest people leave the church, and I do believe you have done that to people on here. That's very different from giving a different perspective or even arguing some point. It is very personal, and in my own old opinion, very un-catholic. My own introduction to this sight seems to have been mostly (men) suggesting I was either hyper-sensitive or wrong to stay in my own church, when, funny, i'm not even thinking of going anywhere. That's been the funny part for me!
And I, for one, am not languishing anywhere. I've never been so happy in the church as i am right now. go figure. so, Who's putting words where?
Who wouldn't want to
Who wouldn't want to experience the Mass that inspired Saint Francis and many other saints to take up their vocations? If the traditional Mass is "at variance with what we believe," then the Church has been misled for all but the last forty years of her history. But this is an impossibility. The Church isn't susceptible to sudden reversals. The Church didn't spend a millennium wallowing in error, only to be corrected by the last council. Paul VI described a destructive, post-conciliar self-loathing in which the Church appears to abhor herself and especially her past. Benedict XVI should do everything he can to put a stop to the newfangled, but wrong view that only the last few decades of the Church's promulgations and liturgical practices matter. We today aren't unquestionably superior to our Catholic forbears. We own a rich history, and it's dangerous to see Church doctrine and habits in terms of constant rupture with the past, as if continual change is a value of itself. We need an organic view that reverences the Church holistically and doesn't create a false opposition between ourselves and the Saints and Apostles with whom we hope to share eternal communion. I applaud Benedict's decision and hope for enthusiastic implementation of this forthcoming motu propio.
Paul George We just don't
Paul George
We just don't know yet what B16 is going to say in his motu proprio, but assuming that he makes it easier for folks with a longing for Latin and Gregorian Chant to have their beloved Tridentine Mass restored to its pristine splendor, I wonder if this is going to make a real difference in two-thirds of the world where Catholicism is flourishing with astonishing vigor. People in Bangladesh or Congo or even Iraq cannot be expected to embrace a sixteenth century European mode of worship with a liturgical language which is Greek to them, I mean metaphorically, after almost half a decade of enthusiastic participation in their own languages, Bengali, Swahili, Arabic or whatever which have supplanted Latin.
The single most tangible effect of Vatican II has been felt in the celebration of the Liturgy in vernacular languages, especially in Asia and Africa where the spoken languages of peoples do not have the remotest connection to Latin. Today's situation is not dissimilar to what the Apostles were faced with in the first century. But they (and the Holy Spirit) wisely decided not to place "on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear" (Acts 15:10). As a result, the Gospel message was carried to the remotest corners of the earth in all its simplicity and power. Have we not learnt anything from Church history?
I can only hope that B16 will step back from "Eurocentrism" and speak to the entire Church, including the missionary communities of Asia, Africa and elswhere, even as he intends to re-introduce Pius V's Tridentine Latin Mass.
There's a condescending
There's a condescending paternalism in the notion that it's wrong to assert Europe's role in the Church's development or that non-European societies don't have the interest or ability to participate in the traditional Latin Mass. Really? Why not? Are non-European people unable to enjoy the rich fruits of a millennium of European civilization? (Perhaps they're also incapable of understanding the doctrines recorded in Latin by European popes and councils. Shall we throw them out too?) The idea that the habitual traditions of Catholicism and its Latin language are mere cultural accidents, easily discarded, and irrelevant to the faith is a fallacy. In fact, the Roman Catholic faith is inextricably linked to the Latin language, the recurring formulas of (European) popes and councils, and the habits of life and worship practiced for centuries in European monasteries. Benedict is right to re-affirm Europe's role in preserving and spreading the Christian religion. It's not a role Catholics should be ashamed of. Rather, it should be proclaimed, not as the heritage of a small, traditionalist clique, but as the universal property of all Catholics worldwide. Perhaps "people in Bangladesh or Congo or even Iraq" crave a relationship with the Latin and European characteristics of the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps such people would find your "expectations" too low.
Well said Paul George. Jesus
Well said Paul George. Jesus Himself is the ultimate vernacular. He 'inserted' Himself into history and the human race not in some imposing trojan horse or 'universal' language and rite, but one man, specific time, specific place, community and language. It's His Person, His message that is universal and salvivic which speaks to the individual where she or he is, what they are, how they perceive and learn.
The article contains quite a
The article contains quite a bit of truth regarding the minimal effect of the MP on the Tridentine Mass. Some of the comments about "Rome burning" and that bigger problems are being ignored, are expected, and predictably unthoughtful. In such statements, two things are ignored. First, the Church is not capable of handling more than one issue at a time (all the bishops, cardinals, priests, and laity of the world incapable of multi-tasking). This presumes that ANY attention to allowing the Pre-V2 Mass necessarily prevents work from being done to address sex abuse problems, diminishing numbers in South America, or addressing poverty. Second, it ignores the fact that pastoral matters of the greatest significance (sacraments, aid to the poor, comfort to the wounded) are dealt with every day of the year in parishes and dioceses worldwide. I applaud Benedict XVI (alas, some here would parody his title) for working to weaken the pillars of possible schism. The schismatic organizations will stand to lose members who join for the sole reason that they feel a connection to the Tridentine Mass (as I do) that is missing when they attend a modern Rite Mass. The liberated allowance of this Mass, moreover, does not work against uniformity in the modern Rite. Recall that some religious orders retain their Rites, which already prevents a "universal" liturgy, first promoted by Trent (which btw was not a "translation" but a move to place the Roman curial Rite as the Rite of all Catholics. That didn't even work out as intended).
Michael O'Connor
Having grown up during the
Having grown up during the Latin Mass era, I don't know why so many are thrilled about its return. It is a language that is not spoken in any part of the world. We didn't understand what we were hearing or repeating. Finally, I don't recall any place in the Gospels where Jesus spoke to the masses in Latin or in a language his followers did not speak or understand.
There is a silly romantic notion that if the Latin Mass is brought back, it will produce a more spiritual experience and bring back the good ole days when churches were were filled. It ain't going to happen. The issues and challenges the Church faces have NOTHING to do with the return of the Latin Mass.
Maybe not with the Latin,
Maybe not with the Latin, but with the texts of the Rite (Tridentine vs Pauline), absolutely. Look around this sight, there are many who challenge the Sacrificial nature of Christ's death, let alone the Mass. There have been disputes over the Real Presence, the nature of the priesthood, and Holy Orders. In forming the "new" Mass many references to distinctive Catholic teaching were purged: The Sacrifice of the Mass, the intercession of the saints, Mary, the distinction between the priest and the people.
Catholics, if surveys are to be believed, have abandoned the Catholic faith large-scale. The Church is unable to meet the challenges before it because it has become divided against itself. A revival of the Tridentine Missal, in conjunction with the reform of the Pauline Missal to reflect orthodox Catholic teaching will reinforce unity of belief throughout the Church. (and yes, we can have unity of belief with a diversity of rites, provided that the rites are reflections of the same Truth)
There are those who will oppose such solidifying of Catholic belief, but our Church was founded on a Rock, not on sand. Many may well leave the Catholic Church (particularly of my parents' generation) and, as painful as that may be, it is most likely for the best for the Church in the long run.
BTW, this will not silence the Tridentine Mass movement, but give it broad public recognition. It will help keep Catholics from fleeing to independent and SSPX chapels just to avoid the prevalent abuses in their region (Orange County Ca for example). This will strengthen those who are working for continuity and unity, which will increase demand for reverence at Mass, which will improve conditions so that fewer will flee...
Heretoday there is a great
Heretoday there is a great deal I could comment on in this posting, but the overriding impression you have left me with is that you seem to think that 'continuity and unity, which wiill increase demand for reverence at Mass' is somehow the pinnacle of Catholic expression. I'm not sure I find that convincing. I've always believed that in practicing any religion the pinnacle was personal metanoia and the development of a relationship with the Divine which then became one's primary drive in his personal interactions with the world.
If returning the Mass to Latin, or to Tridentine texts, helps some people in this process, good for them and for the church, but to assume it will somehow magically (oops spiritually) propel all of us along this path is fantastical thinking.
What is most sad to me, is that in pursuiting this fantastical thinking, you have written off an entire generation as ultimately being good for the Catholic Church, as if the most important thing in Catholicism is the good of the Church and not the good of the individuals it exists to serve.
I somehow doubt that Jesus founded His church thinking it's self preservation as Catholic, was more important than His life mission to serve all who seek Him. After all, He called Himself Jewish and was at the service of everyone with whom He came in contact.
Liturgically speaking, yes
Liturgically speaking, yes those two words describe my view. My problem with the Pauline Missal, particularly as usually celebrated, is that it forms an obstacle to Catholic belief. The Tridentine Mass may not have been as helpful to teaching Catholic faith due to its inaccessibility (and I'm not talking about Latin, but the silence of most of the Mass), but the texts themselves contain almost a complete summary of Catholic belief.
Indeed the goal of Catholicism is the ongoing and ultimate conversion to Christ of the individual, but for years Catholicism as practiced has avoided that like the plague. The new translation, the Moto Proprio, Sacramentum Caritatis, these are the first steps in correcting where we went wrong 37 years ago. The rest of the journey will not be automatic, but "once the feet are set right the rest will follow"(1) I am aware I paint with a (too?) broad of brush in speaking of my parents' (your?) generation. But the fact remains that my generation does not have the attachment to the Pauline Missal or liberal Catholicism that our parents peers had. For the most part, those who would have replaced them have left the Church, in fact if not in name. Those who remain have moved further toward the right. The restoration of continuity will not be opposed from the youth so much as it will be by those who have entrenched themselves in the "spirit" of Vatican II.
1 Aslan, on restoring the giant in "The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe"
Why on earth do you think
Why on earth do you think your parents' generation would leave the church because there will sometimes be a Tridentine mass in their diocese? How on earth can you feel that it is best for the Church to lose good people?
Not because that there will
Not because that there will be an occasional (early am in the cemetery on the outskirts of the diocese) Tridentine Mass, not because the Tridentine Mass will be offered within reasonable access of most of the laity, but because this is only the beginning. The liberation of the Tridentine Mass gives as much, if not more momentum, to the reform of the reform movement (what was that someone was saying about always in reform?) as it does to the Traditionalists. And with the reform of the reform you change not just the availability of the Tridentine Mass, but the way the Pauline Missal is celebrated as well. And the changes are not just to the Mass, but because they are rooted in the source and summit of our faith (the Eucharist), the will branch out. Catechetical programs that have run for generations without teaching the Catholic faith will be challenged. The role of the priest as the one who offers the sacrifice on behalf of the people, as an Alter Christus will be strengthened.
I cannot count the number of times I have heard that no change will be accomplished in the Church (particularly any change toward continuity and unity) until the generation that bore me and my peers has passed out of control. I don't think that my generation can wait, there is too much at risk (the remainder of our generation and our children are in harms way). I would that everyone realize that souls are at stake and the harm that has been done, but I know that will not happen. I also have to respect the honesty of those who (like some here), having realized that they no longer believe what the Catholic Church does, leave the Catholic Church for some other creed or congregation that coincides with their belief.
ah, the domino theory...(in
ah, the domino theory...(in itself refuted by our history and culture and tradition)...
I think your near-desperate wish for the death of your parents' generation (of which I may likely be one) has a whole lot to do with your hanging out too much with people who tell each other the same tired (even if youthful) stuff about church and, besides, are at a time in their lives when they really kinda think their parents' generation will have to die off before they get control. Doesn't really happen that way, HT, much as many of us have a memory of such feelings :0).
I keep trying to imagine how you are
If I thought that the
If I thought that the future of the TLM was truly in the hands of the likes of the American bishops and Walter Kasper, I would give up in despair. The fact remains that God is in control. The NO is a fraud. Its proponents are temporary interlopers whose days are numbered. The Church will triumph and the old rite of Mass will be restored to its rightful and normative place in the Catholic liturgy.