tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post3007869247273466965..comments2024-02-24T12:12:53.249-05:00Comments on Catholic in Brooklyn: The Dangerous Superficiality of Traditionalism -- Part 2Catholic in Brooklynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02714284710110785019noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-71378562008784009372016-05-12T14:17:00.093-04:002016-05-12T14:17:00.093-04:00
Who said that Liturgy must be understood?
Liturgy...<br />Who said that Liturgy must be understood?<br />Liturgy is a medium to an end; not an end in itself.<br />Language and other settings are there to help its aims.<br />Even so, you can always read the translation in the Missal; or you can learn enough Latin to understand it.<br />Religions are not Phylosophies.<br />When a religion becomes a phylosophy, it stops being a religion.<br />Furthermore: liturgy does not preclude or impede private devotions in and out Mass.<br />When nowdays people travel so much, Latin should be the language of choice to feel the union among Catholics from all over the world.<br />It is through practice (liturgy ) when you become acquainted with the teachings of the Church -very much like osmosis-<br />Then, it is up to you -you are free - to choose the level of commitment with the faith.<br />After the disaster of emptied churches and lack of priests, all after the Council, its is time to study psychology of Religions and stop favoring things that do not work.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04091856560583327049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-6732807244736721032016-03-16T22:54:17.247-04:002016-03-16T22:54:17.247-04:00I don't think the point is about the actual la...I don't think the point is about the actual language, but the wording. The content of the prayers used is what makes the difference possibly, regardless of whether it is in Latin, or any other language, as though the intent and faith is needed always, the commands used in the words that make a ritual prayer powerful, are very important and so maybe this is why Exorcists who claim the Old Rites are more effective, mean the words used?Silverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07434188183811906133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-9752988946233647572015-03-23T09:57:19.982-04:002015-03-23T09:57:19.982-04:00Thank you for your comment. Yes, I agree that fro...Thank you for your comment. Yes, I agree that from an intellectual point of view, Athelstane does make very good points. And I certainly agree that we have a crisis in the Church in the western countries. But I'm a little older than you, and I remember the Church before all of the "Vatican II changes" were brought in, and before the Mass was changed. People were more reverent outwardly, and just as society in general was more respectful, so those in the Church were more respectful. But society changed, and so did those in the pews. The crisis in the Catholic Church here in the West is reflective of the crisis in our society. <br /><br />I also agree that the prayers of the TLM are much deeper than those of the OF. Everything was simplified in the OF. Was that a bad thing? Not necessarily. I still say that contending that changing the Mass caused the crisis in the Church is ignore the crisis in our culture in general, and also to ignore the fact that the Church has grown so tremendously in our other countries which do not have an European mindset, which is the basis of the TLM. <br /><br />I have heard the arguments that the "devil hates Latin." Did you know that black Masses are done in Latin? Yes, the devil hates Latin because it was used in the Mass for centuries and is still the official language of the Church. But there is nothing "holy" or special about a language that came from a pagan culture, and in fact was the language of those who put Our Lord to death. Catholic in Brooklynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02714284710110785019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-38549700744240975572015-03-23T07:52:59.690-04:002015-03-23T07:52:59.690-04:00I have to say that I find Athelstane's points ...I have to say that I find Athelstane's points quite compelling and well put. I am quite happy to attend both the OP and the TLM (I know, I know, whether or not I am *happy* is irrelevant!) but as pointed out, Jesus IS there in both. I've grown up with the Novus Ordo, with a disgracefully inadequate Catholic education at school and learnt my faith from my parents and then from true Catholic social groups. I have been drawn to the TLM and even sang Gregorian Chant in it whilst it was said in a parish I could access. It is always reverent. I have been to breathtakingly beautiful and reverent OF Masses too. BUT. The fact is, that the new translation does not convey the richness of our faith in the way that the old translation does. Compare the wording. It does, indeed 'create a pronounced theological shift'. That being said, I have also had many very frustrating discussions with TLM Catholics who DO think that they are superior to the rest of the OF attending Catholics. I believe the TLM Mass conveys true Catholicism better in the wording of the prayers (- oh so much fuller and richer and more specific) and in the proper Catholic teaching preached from the pulpit) but that doesn't mean it's congregation is better! Satan will push our buttons wherever we are. But, I thought that Athelstane's response was very balanced and not patronizing at all. Indeed, the OF Mass was authorised and Jesus IS THERE. In the end, isn't He everything?<br />I also must say that I am among the 2% of school attendees that have continued to practice my faith after school (which I finished 20 years ago) and am now still watching my children get the same sorrowfully inadequate Catholic education from the school as I did. My children are among a small handful of students who practice their faith. Most of them receive the sacraments then their parents don't bring them back until Christmas or Easter IF THAT. They don't genuflect (school says if everyone did it it would take too long, I kid you not). All the students of age go to Holy Communion though. They do not know WHO is in the tabernacle. You CANNOT say that the OF has had nothing to do with it. It may not be an 'all-or-nothing' kind of thing, but the lack of reverence that has crept into the OF, the laissez faire approach that decreased the awareness of the sacredness of the sanctuary and Who is present.... YES! Jesus is there! It is just that fewer seem to know it, nor to care. And numbers drop and keep dropping. Compare the stats and compare the dates. Compare what was happening in history, politics, socio-economy, industrial advances. But the statistics on practicing Catholics do have an uncanny timeliness to the practice of the OF the way it is (not the way it was supposed to be).<br />That being said, many of the points in this article are good ones. We must not be bitter, nor jaded, nor uncharitable, nor dwell entirely on appearances, although appearances do have their place. Each one look to his or her own, turn towards HIM, wheresoever the sanctuary light burns. <br />One more thought: I have heard several exorcists attest to the fact that prayers in Latin are more efficacious in driving out the devil Fr Chad Ripperger for one. Not sure why that is, the apostles drove out devils and they didn't use Latin! However, it is, I believe a pertinent point, and perhaps the suggestion that "there is nothing more inherently spiritual about Latin than there is about any other language." needs to be re-examined. Boohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01701631251443478673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-21923704934326065632015-03-20T13:23:46.695-04:002015-03-20T13:23:46.695-04:00Care to elaborate?Care to elaborate?Catholic in Brooklynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02714284710110785019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-83279413213001953602015-03-20T13:22:27.841-04:002015-03-20T13:22:27.841-04:00With great pleasure. The absolute best translatio...With great pleasure. The absolute best translation, as far as I'm concerned, is by Suzanne Noffke. You can get it on Amazon here:<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/Catherine-Siena-Dialogue-Classics-Spirituality/dp/0809122332/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1426872016&sr=1-1&keywords=noffke+catherine+of+siena<br /><br />I have been reading it for Lent and I am blown away by how completely relevant it is to our time. You can get this only in paperback. I wish it was an ebook as I prefer to read on my Ipad, but get it anyway. <br /><br />Thanks for asking. Catholic in Brooklynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02714284710110785019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-44036602165528625692015-03-20T10:46:29.636-04:002015-03-20T10:46:29.636-04:00Can you recommend a good version/translation of St...Can you recommend a good version/translation of St. Catherine of Siena's dialogues? Preferably something still in print. I'd love to read these. My wife and I named our 9-month old Catherine Siena Marie and since then St. Catherine seems to be popping up all over for me.Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00695291861996886645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-89044147539488901462015-03-20T10:42:39.580-04:002015-03-20T10:42:39.580-04:00We have someone that is trying to have a civil dis...We have someone that is trying to have a civil discussion and making sure that they aren't coming across as a condescending individual, and then you have our most humble author. I suffer from pride in faith as well, but this blog takes the cake. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-76806388436548405182015-03-19T14:53:17.681-04:002015-03-19T14:53:17.681-04:00Back in my days as a traditionalist, you and I wou...Back in my days as a traditionalist, you and I would have been very good friends. I would have agreed with everything you wrote 100%. <br /><br />I know exactly what you are saying and why you are saying it. But what you don’t see – and what I didn’t see back then – is that you are still imposing your own will on the Church, and not accepting her judgments. You are judging the Mass based on your own feelings – what you feel is important. That is called Protestantism. <br /><br />I stand by my statement, that it is not up to us as laity to make decisions about the Mass, deciding for ourselves what is best. The Mass is not a prudential judgment. The Mass is the official liturgy of the Church. It is not physical but spiritual, meaning it is guided by the Holy Spirit. It is the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. We can certainly have our preferences. There is nothing wrong with preferring the TLM over the OF. But it is wrong to judge the TLM as SUPERIOR to the OF. And that is exactly what you are doing.<br /><br />I find your statement about growth in third world countries rather ironic: “It's untenable to attribute this growth of Catholicism just to the new rite. Without further analysis, the most that can be said is that it appears not to have been too inhibitive of growth in this region over this timeframe”. If that is true, then I say it is untenable to attribute the decline in the Catholic Church to the implementation of the New Mass, blah blah blah. <br /><br />You are convinced of the superiority of the TLM. You patronizingly say that the OF is valid but flawed, having “exacerbated the problem” of the crisis in the Western Church. Do you believe that the OF is a manmade liturgy, or do you believe that it was inspired by the Holy Spirit? If you believe that it was manmade, then you do not trust the Catholic Church as divinely led by the Holy Spirit, because clearly the Holy Spirit fell down on the job on this one. <br /><br />I walk by faith. I will leave you to walk by your intellect. <br />Catholic in Brooklynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02714284710110785019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-52676564962199862962015-03-19T14:18:37.891-04:002015-03-19T14:18:37.891-04:00My main question aside, I do think that I ought to...My main question aside, I do think that I ought to address a few other points you have made:<br /><br />1. I do regret that my statements seemed condescending. What I *trying* to do was to move out of the way any possible accusations that I rejected the legitimacy of the Novus ordo, as emphatically as I could. Look: truly, I don't sit in judgment on those who attend the N.O., nor the TLM. I do *not* know the state of anyone's soul. And I am certainly not interesting in alienating anyone from an interest in the TLM - quite the contrary, I want it to grow. <br /><br />2. <i>Neither is it up to us as laity to make decisions about the Mass, deciding for ourselves what is best.</i><br /><br />With all respect, this statement cannot stand without qualification. It's true that I cannot create a liturgy on my own, or change it on my own (thank heavens). But certainly we *are* told in both canon law and the teaching of the Church that we have a responsibility for the spiritual care of our souls and those of our families. We are not required to attend Mass at a specific location or from a specific celebrant. We are not even bound to a particular rite or use (though there may be limitations on certain sacraments from other rites).<br /><br />3. <i>The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit - I do think you agree with that.</i><br /><br />I do. But not in every act. Sometimes, the Church makes mistakes in the execution of its duties. Sometimes, even Popes do so. (Sometimes, we even elect venial monsters as popes.) Sometimes, egregiously so. And yes, sometimes, even in the matter of the liturgy (see for example Clement VII issuing the Quinones Breviary, later suppressed by Paul IV for dangerous Protestant tendencies).<br /><br />4. <i>...all of those who support the EF point to the OF as the source of the problem. </i><br /><br />Some might do so. I would not. The problems clearly predate the 60's liturgical reforms. <br /><br />But do I think that these reforms exacerbated the problem? Yes, I do. <br /><br />5. <i>I think it is only logical to conclude that the OF is a major reason why the Church has grown in these countries.</i><br /><br />If I may, caution is needed here in such assertions.<br /><br />I am willing to concede that certain aspects (especially the use of the vernacular as normative, notwithstanding that this flouts the express demands of Sacrosanctum Concilium 36, 54) have proved attractive to African Catholics, perhaps even converts. <br /><br />But mere growth alone will not make a case for the relative merit of a missal or rite, let alone for specific aspects of it. Two points: a) Consider the remarkable success of the Traditional Roman Rite in Africa in the 20th century - the number exploded from 1.9 million in 1900 to over 30 million by the time of the Council. Today it is approaching 140 million, but the trend line was already established, based heavily on demographic factors (i.e., lower mortality). Likewise, the Roman Rite has a ...pretty impressive track record in Latin America and East Asia after 1500, and, for that matter, in gaining converts in Anglosphere countries (where, I feel I ought to point out, the number of adult converts dropped very steeply in beginning in the 1960's). b) We also have to consider other factors that may have contributed to the growth. The most notable other development in African Christianity in this period was decolonization. And it is worth noting that it is not just Catholicism that has surged in the 20th century, but Christianity across the board, especially evangelical and pentecostal sects. It's untenable to attribute this growth of Catholicism just to the new rite. Without further analysis, the most that can be said is that it appears not to have been too inhibitive of growth in this region over this timeframe.<br />Athelstanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07346012062816580296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-36755798746420654892015-03-19T13:43:20.024-04:002015-03-19T13:43:20.024-04:00Of course I believe hell exists and that souls go ...Of course I believe hell exists and that souls go there. As I have stated on this blog, I believe I was headed to hell for most of my life, and the fact that I now have a chance at heaven is due only to the mercy of God. <br /><br />The point I got from your reply is that you feel that the TLM is better at promoting true Catholicism, specifically the Four Last Things, than the OF. My reply is that yes, you can make that argument, but it doesn't really matter. What matters is what the Church says, because she is the Mystical Body of Christ and the Holy Spirit guides her. <br /><br />If you don't believe that, then you are not Catholic in your thinking. Catholic in Brooklynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02714284710110785019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-87701525463039139422015-03-19T13:23:29.730-04:002015-03-19T13:23:29.730-04:00CiB,
It may not matter what you think, but I woul...CiB,<br /><br />It may not matter what you think, but I would like to know just the same: <b>Do you believe that hell exists and that souls really do go there?</b><br /><br />If I missed your point, I fear you have missed mine as well.Athelstanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07346012062816580296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-41390672358673627962015-03-19T12:40:05.430-04:002015-03-19T12:40:05.430-04:00I can only say - you are a true traditionalist, an...I can only say - you are a true traditionalist, and you have completely missed the point of my post. <br /><br />Until only recently I would have agreed with everything you said. From an intellectual point of view, yes, we can point out all the ways in which the EF is superior to the OF. I could also point out that Christ should not have been born in a dirty vermin-infested manger nor should he have been crucified in such a horrible manner in a garbage dump alongside of common criminals. But it is not up to me to make these decisions.<br /><br />Neither is it up to us as laity to make decisions about the Mass, deciding for ourselves what is best. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit - I do think you agree with that. And the Church has given us the Ordinary Form of the Mass. Admittedly the Church in the west has gone through a tremendous crisis since this has happened, and all of those who support the EF point to the OF as the source of the problem. <br /><br />But how does that explain that since the introduction of the OF, the Church has been growing in leaps and bounds in the third-world countries – Africa, South America and Asia? Our western culture has become completely degenerate and lost its way, and the Church has suffered along with it. As I have pointed out time and time again, ALL religions have suffered in our western culture, not just the Catholic Church. <br /><br />When you look at the entire world and the way and the growth of the Catholic Church since the introduction of the OF, I think it is only logical to conclude that the OF is a major reason why the Church has grown in these countries. They do not have a European mentality. They look at things very differently than we do. The European Mass – which is what the TLM is – was not suited for them. And the Holy Spirit guided the Church to give them the Mass that would help them grow. <br /><br />“The Ordinary Form is not invalid, illicit, or illegitimate, or even necessarily a grave danger.” Do you realize how patronizing that statement is? Do you realize how lacking in faith that statement is? You are looking at the two forms of the Mass from a strictly intellectual point of view. And by doing that, you are limiting the Holy Spirit. <br /><br />As Christians, we have to give up our own will and join it to God in the Trinity. It didn’t make any sense when God told Abraham to kill his son, Isaac. From an intellectual point of view, you could have made a very good argument not to do it. Isaac was the son through whom all of the promises were given. It is a sin to kill. Human sacrifice is a grave evil. But there is one thing you cannot argue against – it was a command from God. God said to do it, and Abraham went against his own will entirely and obeyed. And because of that, he is the father of the faithful.<br /><br />All of your intellectual arguments mean nothing. My life is based on faith and obedience. The Church is my Mother. She is the Mystical Body of Christ. If she says this is the Mass, then this is the Mass. It doesn’t matter what I think.<br /><br />And it doesn’t matter what you think. Catholic in Brooklynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02714284710110785019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-72113779654983619782015-03-19T11:28:21.775-04:002015-03-19T11:28:21.775-04:00The problem is that modern western man does not re...The problem is that modern western man does not really believe in hell, let alone that anything about his nature might send him to such a place.<br /><br />And this problem has penetrated the Church itself, which has undergone a tremendous de-emphasis on the Four Last Things throughout its life - its catechesis, its devotional life, its education, and, yes, its liturgy. It was with good cause that Piers Paul Read observed some years back that "neglect of the Four Last Things is one of the causes for the relative decline of the fortunes of the Catholic Church in the developed world." <br /><br />The difficulty with the Missal of Paul VI is not the lack of Latin (after all, technically its normative text is Latin, even if this is very rarely celebrated) but that there is a pronounced shift away from emphasis on the Four Last Things in its texts - and in its praxis, this is generally deemphasized even further, in part due to the many options it permits. The new offertory, the choice of readings (especially on Sundays, when the vast majority of Catholics actually attend), the new propers, the loss of the Judica Me, the loss of the communion confiteor, the loss of key penitential rubrics - all of these things combine to create a pronounced theological shift without precedent in the Latin Rite liturgical tradition (which includes many rites and uses outside the old Roman Rite). In fairness, the disdain for the Four Last Things was already growing before the Council, or the advent of the new missal. Just the same, the missal reflects, in some real way, these priorities, albeit not fatally so. <br /><br />And yet hell is a real place, and souls really do go there, and we are to properly fear it (Council of Trent, S. VI, Canon 8). Indeed, to listen to nearly all of the doctors and saints of the Church who have spoken on the subject, it would seem that *most* souls go there - perhaps all but a small handful - which is after all a reasonable reading of our Lord's own words at numerous points in the Gospels. St. Catherine of Siena herself provides in her Dialogue a stark vision of the four torments of hell. "But in my divine justice I allow my fire to burn these souls mightily, tormenting them without consuming them. And the tremendous pain of this tortuous burning has as many forms as the forms of their sins and is more or less severe in proportion to their sins.”<br /><br />The problem is not the Latin. If indeed having a more comprehensible liturgy was the objective, we could have been given the permission to celebrate the Roman Rite in a faithful, sacral vernacular, and that would be that. Yet the introduction of the vernacular was arguably the least important change that was made. Why was so much changed, without precedent? More to the point, why is there so much deemphasis on the Four Last Things in our normative liturgies today? And could that have something to do with the universalism that appears to prevail in so much of the Church?<br /><br />The Ordinary Form is not invalid, illicit, or illegitimate, or even necessarily a grave danger. Catholics who attend it (who after all account for perhaps 99% of participants, even in America) are not second class Catholics. Nor is exclusive attendance at the EF any guarantee of holiness or even orthodoxy (if it were, how could the 60's have happened, or for that matter, the Reformation?) If you are prudent, both forms of the Roman Rite can make you a saint, and I have seen many saintly people at Churches that only offer the Ordinary Form. But I do contend that it is theologically impoverished in this regard, and it is not schismatic or an act of dissent to hold as such. If anything, contemporary society needs the clarity and emphasis on the Four Last Things even *more* than our grandsires did, for our pride is greater than theirs. <br /><br />Athelstanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07346012062816580296noreply@blogger.com