Francis intends to go all the way
#11
(11-06-2014, 11:12 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: How is that a touché? Most Catholics think sex outside of marriage, divorce and homosexuality are OK.
I doubt a few conservative neo-catholics suffering from a bit of papolatry are the main problem of the Church.

They don't have to be "the main problem" to be a huge problem, and I think they are just that -- not in terms of their potential for individual holiness, or their sincerity and all that, but in terms of their aiding and abetting the progressives by going along with whatever comes along if they think, incorrectly, that it's "authoritative" enough.

The radical progressives are obvious; the paleos and neos know who they are and what their deal is, and we're pretty united in standing against them, generally speaking. But as soon as those radicals get to wear zucchetti, the neos suddenly treat their liberalism a lot differently. And the lighter in color the zucchetto is, the more "from God" the "progress" being pushed for is viewed, and when it's a white zucchetto, anything that comes from the mouth of the man wearing it is treated as straight from the lips from Almighty God Himself, even if the "anything" in question has nothing to do with the Ordinary or Extraordinary Magisteria. Defending the indefensible (Koran-kissing, for ex.) and tortuous (and torturous to us trads) attempts at logic used as sugar to help the (bad) medicine go down become the marks of "a good Catholic."

-- None of which is to say that giving people -- especially the Holy Father! -- all benefit of any possible doubt, not impugning his motives and acting as you have the power to read minds and hearts, being very respectful when offering criticism, refraining from hyperbole, etc., are not just "nice" but mandatory for a virtuous Catholic (all of these things being sometimes sorely lacking in the trad world!). But the neos' ostrich stance (at best) and "neosplaining" things that do need to be respectfully criticized and corrected in order to help ensure that people correctly understand the Faith harms the Church in a big way, IMO. I think it's harmful not only in terms of its doing nothing to help people understand things in the right way, but by allowing prelates to think we're too stupid to know what they're up to, and too docile to do anything about it by at least speaking out or for ex., or, better, doing even more, such as withholding financial support from bad parishes, etc.

All of that is why I so pray that trads get a lot more vocal (in the right way, without the "toxic trad" crap) and spread Traditional Catholicism to our fellow Catholics who are sincere, and who may well be very holy and virtuous, but who are simply ignorant of what the Faith really teaches, what's truly required in terms of obedience, etc. If each person who's registered at this forum were to "tradvert" just three neo-conservative types, and if those new trads were to go on and tradvert three others, and so forth -- we could change the world.


Reply
#12
(11-07-2014, 05:47 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: They don't have to be "the main problem" to be a huge problem, and I think they are just that -- not in terms of their potential for individual holiness, or their sincerity and all that, but in terms of their aiding and abetting the progressives by going along with whatever comes along if they think, incorrectly, that it's "authoritative" enough.



That's exactly my point. If most Catholics thought the way most people here seem to think Vatican II would have never happened, at least not in the way that it did. No one would have even thought about scrapping the liturgy.
Reply
#13
(11-07-2014, 11:51 AM)Silouan Wrote:
(11-07-2014, 05:47 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: They don't have to be "the main problem" to be a huge problem, and I think they are just that -- not in terms of their potential for individual holiness, or their sincerity and all that, but in terms of their aiding and abetting the progressives by going along with whatever comes along if they think, incorrectly, that it's "authoritative" enough.



That's exactly my point. If most Catholics thought the way most people here seem to think Vatican II would have never happened, at least not in the way that it did. No one would have even thought about scrapping the liturgy.

Vatican II didn't "scrap the liturgy."

During the council, there were some changes to the Roman Rite of Mass, but they were modest in comparison to what came later.  It wasn't until after the council ended that the changes came in earnest, and there is nothing in the council that mandated them.

The new Mass didn't appear until five years after the council ended but was unnecessary.  Had the changes stopped at, say, those of Advent 1964, the Church would be in a better state than She is, although the Mass changes are/were obviously not the only problem.
Reply
#14
(11-07-2014, 01:01 PM)DJR Wrote:
(11-07-2014, 11:51 AM)Silouan Wrote:
(11-07-2014, 05:47 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: They don't have to be "the main problem" to be a huge problem, and I think they are just that -- not in terms of their potential for individual holiness, or their sincerity and all that, but in terms of their aiding and abetting the progressives by going along with whatever comes along if they think, incorrectly, that it's "authoritative" enough.



That's exactly my point. If most Catholics thought the way most people here seem to think Vatican II would have never happened, at least not in the way that it did. No one would have even thought about scrapping the liturgy.

Vatican II didn't "scrap the liturgy."

During the council, there were some changes to the Roman Rite of Mass, but they were modest in comparison to what came later.  It wasn't until after the council ended that the changes came in earnest, and there is nothing in the council that mandated them.

The new Mass didn't appear until five years after the council ended but was unnecessary.  Had the changes stopped at, say, those of Advent 1964, the Church would be in a better state than She is, although the Mass changes are/were obviously not the only problem.

Vatican Ii's document on the liturgy did not create the Novus Ordo but it set out a blueprint for a reform that had been in the woodwork since at least the time of Pius XII's pontificate. There is really no going back with the liturgy, no ending of the Novus Ordo. The new Mass was promulgated by a soon to be saint pope who took legitimate cues from Vatican II in creating it. Since then it has spread to every corner of the globe as the normative Rite in the Latin Church, a Rite that even the Pope uses for public liturgy at St. Peter's.

We who love the pre Conciliar liturgy ought to accept that we are a minority and will probably always remain a minority in being attached to rites and rituals that were abandoned wholesale (other than as a begrudging indult)by Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis and the majority of the episcopate for the last half century. Sure we are given an option of holding to he older norms if we are attached to them but that is it. We should accept it.

And I know, both Benedict and John Paul II allowed for the old rites under certain circumstances but I think it was only to stave off a schism, not because either of them really wanted the old anymore. Maybe Benedict did at least in a fit of 1940's Bavarian nostalgia, but not because he thought that the old ways were actually better.

The way I see it the old Mass and the new are both here to stay but will slowly but surely be hybridized over a long period of time. There will be cross fertilization as both forms of the Mass come into contact with each other, especially at parishes where both are offered. This happens already in at least one parish I know of around here where having the TLM has slowly brought more reverent and traditional options to be used within the Novus Ordo, including ad orientem worship, the use of an altar rail, candles and a crucifix on the altar and the return of the tabernacle to its true and rightful place.

This is about all we can realistically hope for and as far as I'm concerned it's better than nothing. Sure Vat II didn't explicitly create the Novus Ordo but the Popes and bishops used its ideas to create it and it's here to stay. We cannot turn back the clock to the interim missal of 1964/65 even if we'd like to. Maybe that will happen as an option in some places, in fact it's a nice idea. It's just not going to be the norm though.

What we have lived through is a chaotic time, but eventually things will get better even though things will never return to the way they were before the Council. Some of us might see the 1962 missal for most of our lives but it won't be around forever, it'll slowly change and cross fertilize. I think at heart this is what Ratzinger wanted by allowing the 1962 Missal to be used again.

Reply
#15
(11-07-2014, 01:51 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: (...)

And I know, both Benedict and John Paul II allowed for the old rites under certain circumstances but I think it was only to stave off a schism, not because either of them really wanted the old anymore. Maybe Benedict did at least in a fit of 1940's Bavarian nostalgia, but not because he thought that the old ways were actually better.

The way I see it the old Mass and the new are both here to stay but will slowly but surely be hybridized over a long period of time. There will be cross fertilization as both forms of the Mass come into contact with each other, especially at parishes where both are offered. This happens already in at least one parish I know of around here where having the TLM has slowly brought more reverent and traditional options to be used within the Novus Ordo, including ad orientem worship, the use of an altar rail, candles and a crucifix on the altar and the return of the tabernacle to its true and rightful place.

This is about all we can realistically hope for and as far as I'm concerned it's better than nothing. Sure Vat II didn't explicitly create the Novus Ordo but the Popes and bishops used its ideas to create it and it's here to stay. We cannot turn back the clock to the interim missal of 1964/65 even if we'd like to. Maybe that will happen as an option in some places, in fact it's a nice idea. It's just not going to be the norm though.

What we have lived through is a chaotic time, but eventually things will get better even though things will never return to the way they were before the Council. Some of us might see the 1962 missal for most of our lives but it won't be around forever, it'll slowly change and cross fertilize. I think at heart this is what Ratzinger wanted by allowing the 1962 Missal to be used again.

That's a bit of an uncharitable reading of Benedict's intention. Reading his book on the Liturgy I actually think he finds the older ways better, and that the New Mass the way it was concocted after the Council is an utter fail—he criticizes every single point that became the mark of the New Mass.

You may be right about this cross influence; I myself have seen churches turning into a more traditional presentation of the New Mass, which is great—the Tridentine Mass will not, I suspect, be much affected because it has much less space for variations (and the people fond of it don't like variations that much).

Here's a nice video from Dom Cassian Folsom, from the benedictine monastery of Norcia, on the Sacrosanctum Concilium on music (he even explains the polemical active participation bit)

Reply
#16
The bishop of Rome continues to purge the appointees of Pope Benedict:

http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2014...ation.html

Tis the time for saints as they are persecuted by those within the Church.
Reply
#17
(11-07-2014, 01:01 PM)DJR Wrote:
(11-07-2014, 11:51 AM)Silouan Wrote:
(11-07-2014, 05:47 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: They don't have to be "the main problem" to be a huge problem, and I think they are just that -- not in terms of their potential for individual holiness, or their sincerity and all that, but in terms of their aiding and abetting the progressives by going along with whatever comes along if they think, incorrectly, that it's "authoritative" enough.



That's exactly my point. If most Catholics thought the way most people here seem to think Vatican II would have never happened, at least not in the way that it did. No one would have even thought about scrapping the liturgy.

Vatican II didn't "scrap the liturgy."

During the council, there were some changes to the Roman Rite of Mass, but they were modest in comparison to what came later.  It wasn't until after the council ended that the changes came in earnest, and there is nothing in the council that mandated them.

The new Mass didn't appear until five years after the council ended but was unnecessary.  Had the changes stopped at, say, those of Advent 1964, the Church would be in a better state than She is, although the Mass changes are/were obviously not the only problem.



I didn't say Vatican II scrapped the liturgy.  8-)
Reply
#18
(11-07-2014, 03:12 PM)Silouan Wrote:
(11-07-2014, 01:01 PM)DJR Wrote:
(11-07-2014, 11:51 AM)Silouan Wrote:
(11-07-2014, 05:47 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: They don't have to be "the main problem" to be a huge problem, and I think they are just that -- not in terms of their potential for individual holiness, or their sincerity and all that, but in terms of their aiding and abetting the progressives by going along with whatever comes along if they think, incorrectly, that it's "authoritative" enough.



That's exactly my point. If most Catholics thought the way most people here seem to think Vatican II would have never happened, at least not in the way that it did. No one would have even thought about scrapping the liturgy.

Vatican II didn't "scrap the liturgy."

During the council, there were some changes to the Roman Rite of Mass, but they were modest in comparison to what came later.  It wasn't until after the council ended that the changes came in earnest, and there is nothing in the council that mandated them.

The new Mass didn't appear until five years after the council ended but was unnecessary.  Had the changes stopped at, say, those of Advent 1964, the Church would be in a better state than She is, although the Mass changes are/were obviously not the only problem.



I didn't say Vatican II scrapped the liturgy.  8-)

No one has stated that you said that.  My post was merely making an observation.  Vatican II did not "scrap the liturgy." 
Reply
#19
(11-07-2014, 01:51 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: (snip) There is really no going back with the liturgy, no ending of the Novus Ordo. (snip)

We who love the pre Conciliar liturgy ought to accept that we are a minority and will probably always remain a minority in being attached to rites and rituals that were abandoned wholesale (other than as a begrudging indult)by Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis and the majority of the episcopate for the last half century. Sure we are given an option of holding to he older norms if we are attached to them but that is it. We should accept it. (snip)

I absolutely disagree. I think, ultimately, the traditional Mass will prevail and the NO will die. I think this will happen, in large part, due to sheer numbers:  trads have lots of kids; neo-cons and progressives don't, with some outliers among the neo-cons. Even now, it is trad seminaries that are full while NO seminaries languish, and even among the NO seminaries, the young priestlings (ha) are orthodox and very supportive of the TLM.

But even if that were not the case, I don't think we should at all accept the idea of the NO being around forever, with, maybe, if we're lucky, the TLM still being offered here or there, sometimes, once in a while, in the ghetto parishes, maybe every other Sunday of any month with the letter J in its name. Trads need to FIGHT and KEEP fighting. Tradvert people. Send them to FE. Get some FE bumper stickers. Make up "Why the TLM?" flyers and hand them out to the folks after NO Masses -- and include the address and Mass times of the closest TLM. Invite friends and family to attend TLMs with you. Get parishes that don't have the TLM to offer the trad Mass. Etc. People really have to get inspired, man.

Reply
#20
(11-06-2014, 06:07 PM)Silouan Wrote:
(11-06-2014, 02:23 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: If this is what the Pope indeed has in mind then I don't know what else to think except that he has taken the place of God... and we all know what that means.



Many Catholics replaced God with the pope a very long time ago. Until that is fixed you'll continue to be subject to the whims of men.  :shrug:

Well, if that isn't that most nonsensical thing I've read in while
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)