Some Thoughts on Motu Proprio Mania
I am gratified that the long-awaited motu proprio from Pope Benedict, urging a wider celebration of the Tridentine Rite, is out. I’m happy for those, including my son, who love to worship in that way. More power to ’em. Some of the loveliest Catholics I know are devotees of the Tridentine Rite.
That said, I was not personally excited when news of the motu proprio broke, since it doesn’t especially affect me. I attend a Paul VI Mass that is reverently celebrated by the Dominicans of Blessed Sacrament parish in Seattle. My attitude toward liturgy is “Just give me my lines and my blocking.” I then endeavor to learn and forget about them in precisely the same way I endeavor to break in my shoes. The point of shoes is not to notice them, but to walk in them. Shoes you constantly notice are Bad Shoes. Liturgy you focus on is liturgy that’s not doing its job, which is to refer us to God, not to itself.
Now there are two basic reasons people focus on liturgy instead of God, just as there are two reasons a person will focus on his shoes.
The first reason is that the shoes hurt. Lord knows that, in a time of widespread liturgical abuse, people have been hurt by badly celebrated liturgy, and I empathize with those who have. Many have suffered from self-styled “progressives” who regard the Paul VI Rite as their personal playground and laboratory. Worse, they have treated the Tridentine Rite and those who attend it as throwbacks to some imagined Dark Ages. In place of the authentic Paul VI Mass, many Catholics have had to endure a perpetual Feast of St. Narcissus celebrated by Fr. Heylookatme at what Amy Welborn has aptly called the “Church of Aren’t We Fabulous.” Instead of the worship of God, we get perpetual hymns such as the execrable “Anthem” celebrating our Usness, affirming us in our okayness, and glorifying our wonderfulness for being kind enough to admit God into those parts of our lives where we feel comfortable with Him. The notion among such “progressives” often seems to be that the Mass isn’t enough. They appear to think that people who come for the Christ Who is present in Word and Sacrament have to be bludgeoned into a sort of plastic bonhomie with glad-handing and yuk-it-up homilies about sports and TV shows. The phoniness of such “community-building” experiments on the lab rats in the pews can be awfully wearying for those who have lives and who do not require that the Mass be transformed into a Kiwanis Club meeting in order for them to be socially fulfilled. We like our commandments in the proper order: Love God, then neighbor.
That’s one of the reasons for the motu proprio, to try to give succor to those injured by dreadful abuses of the Paul VI Rite. I wish fans of the Tridentine Rite well in finding a Mass that is reverently celebrated and in receiving redress for legitimate grievances about real abuses, just as I hope the man with painful shoes will soon get new and comfortable shoes—so that both can get on with the business of walking with God.
But I also note that there is another reason some people become focused on their shoes, or the liturgy: oversensitivity. Some people are hypochondriacs who imagine injury where there is none or who grossly exaggerate small irritations into great big ones. Did the priest hold the Host high enough during the Consecration? Is that person dressed in a way I think fitting for Mass? I can’t bear altar girls! Those people held hands during the Our Father! There’s a parish “renewal” program in the bulletin—I wonder what that’s supposed to mean? I see they’ve added that 15th Station of the Cross. That tells me all I need to know about this place.
Some people become so inflamed over such matters that they sacrifice the love of neighbor on the altar of liturgical correctness. Some can even reach the point where they regard those who attend the Paul VI Mass—even a reverently celebrated one—as second-class Catholics. I know this, because I’ve been on the receiving end of such judgments repeatedly. When I’ve stated that I believe the Mass is the Mass is the Mass and so I’m content with either the Tridentine or Paul VI liturgies, I’ve been asked by Tridentine enthusiasts, “Is a Black Mass a Mass also?” (Talk about telegraphing contempt!) I’ve been told repeatedly and in no uncertain terms that the only reason I like the Paul VI Rite is that I don’t know any better, am still a Protestant at heart, or need to have exposure to the true Mass, which is vastly more nourishing to the soul than the pathetic desiccated “Novus Ordo.”
When I reply that I have been exposed to the Tridentine Rite and offer my chief impression from the experience (“Ah! Now I see why they wanted to reform the liturgy!”), there are frowns of disdain. Now, I don’t mean that I think the Tridentine Rite “inferior” any more than I think the Paul VI Rite inferior. I think my proper response to the Mass is gratitude, not a critical spirit. But, speaking only for me, I find the Paul VI Mass more spiritually nourishing (though any liturgy promulgated by the Church is good enough for me).
For this sin of believing and professing that any approved liturgy of the Church is good enough for me and that it’s not my job to find fault but to receive gratefully, I’m told that what I’m really saying is “it is all about me and what the liturgy does or doesn’t do for me.” In that marvelous “heads we win, tails you lose” arrangement, I am supposed to feel the superiority of the Tridentine Rite, and if I don’t feel it, it’s because I’m selfishly putting my feelings ahead of the TRUTH, which is fully expressed by the feelings of Tridentine Rite fans.
I don’t think those who prefer the Tridentine Rite are, for that reason, either better or worse Catholics than those who are at home in the Paul VI Rite. Nor do I regard the Mass as something we are commissioned by Christ to weigh in the balance and find wanting. To be sure, I dislike liturgical abuses, whether they be the apocryphal clown Mass or the five-minute Tridentine Hunting Masses of European nobility (in which the Mass was sped along at light speed so m’lord could get on with his fox-hunting expedition). But I don’t throw the babe out with the bath and say that, because the Paul VI liturgy is often abused, it is therefore an abuse itself.
Consequently, I lack a lot of interest in the motu proprio. I’m glad Benedict is interested in it. That’s his job. I simply don’t see why it’s my job. My parish is reverently celebrating the Paul VI Rite. My job is to receive that gift, not to look it in the mouth. Nor is my job to suggest that, if you like the Tridentine Rite instead, you are a second-class Catholic and a narcissist. It would be nice if many enthusiasts for the Tridentine liturgy could return the favor.
Mark Shea blogs at Catholic and Enjoying It!
This article first appeared in the October 2007 issue of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.
217 Responses »
Trackbacks
- Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture | Your Home for Traditional Conservatism » CELEBRITY POLITICS: October 2007
- medieval music
Entries(RSS)
As a 'Protestant' [though I'm not protesting anything, I wish they'd find another name for it], I well recognize the mentality that Mr Shea is writing against -- the obsessive pickiness that is dissatisfied with everything beyond one's own sub-group. In Mr Shea's paragraph 6, substitute questions like: "Do they use the New International Version? Do they accept a non-literal interpretation of early Genesis? [etc etc]? Then they must be second class. " Having observed this for close to 20 years, I now conclude that the obsessive mentality comes first, then it works itself out in whatever religious community the person decides to join. In other words, I cannot take their issues at face value anymore, I think their pickiness is a manifestation of emotional problems.
Mr. Kirkwood at #65,
Thank you very much for the link. It and the links to which it leads have become a "bookmark" on my computer. I indeed learned a lot.
That said, the link did not bring me to the smoking gun that the Christ established the Mass and the Sacraments in the form that the Roman Catholic Church has historically practiced them, that historical practice as outlined on the links which you provided and not in any sketchy prejudices which I might have had.
One will believe that the core of the discord in these most important matters is how Grace is imputed. It appears to me, in my limited knowledge, that Catholics, Orthodox, Calvinists, and Arminians all agree that unless God in the Person of the Christ, our Kinsman Redeemer, shed His blood and died, that God could not extend any Grace (getting what we do not deserve) or Mercy (not getting what we do deserve) to man, the God could only unleash His wrath on man - the fallen creature who must be either destroyed or redeemed. It further seems to me that Catholics, Orthodox, Calvinists, and Arminians hold that man's only response to this offer of Grace made possible through the death (the resurrection goes without saying) of the Christ is faith, for God is a Spirit and is worshiped in Spirit. It would therefore seem that our core fuss and argument, and it is a big one, is how God imputes His Grace to us as we respond in Faith. The Calvinists appear to say that it is all God's foreordained work: he who will be save will be saved and he who will be damned will be damned. The Arminians say that man responds with his will, although even they will speak of the unction of the Holy Spirit. Catholics and Orthodox appear to say that it comes through the Church and specifically the Sacraments with an emphasis on the Mass.
Is this where our nexusless discussion is or does it lie elsewhere? Your thoughts.
Patrick (149),
Well stated.
Miss Moyers (150),
If you are of the mind, please gently mention to the good priest of your parish that nothing like a "groundswell of demand" is required to institute a Tridentine Mass. The motu proprio says only that a "stable group" of faithful who desire the Traditional Mass be present in a parish. As to what constitutes a "stable group" (leaving aside that it has been noted that the phrase is not a literal rendering of the Latin), a local priest told me that the precise term (coetus stabilis) was used in discussions at Vatican II with regards to the size of the apostolic college. And it was determined at Vatican II that such a group could be as few as seven.
By the way, you would be most welcome at our local Tridentine Mass with or without a mantilla.
How sad that mr. Shea takes this position against Catholic Tradition when he once wrote a book ("By What Authority?") in which he describes how it was a study of Catholic Tradition that led him to convert from Evangelical Protestantism.
Secondly, he creates a false dichotomy between liturgy and worship of God ("people let their preoccupation with liturgy interfere with their worship of God [paraphrased]"), as if liturgy were anything other than the worship of God.
Let's not confuse Tradition with tradition. The texts of the liturgy may be in accord with Sacred Tradition, though separated from the liturgical tradition of a particular rite. And even if the liturgical tradition is small "t" tradition, that doesn't mean it isn't important for us, who are rooted in time and place and culture.
To Martha Moyers, Patrick #128 and Steve #154
It would seem that there may be more to the matter of women wearing head coverings than presently meets the eye. According to Robert Sungenis (see link below), it was required in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and still is, even though the 1983 Code doesn't mention it, for reasons he explains. This is in spite of the fact that our hireling shepherds no longer even mention it, let alone enforce it, and as a result, even genuinely traditional priests are forced to look the other way.
But the wearing of head coverings is far from being a mere legal issue, or just an old custom subject to personal preference. As St. Paul understood, and the Church with him for over 1,900 years, there are sound theological reasons for it, which, instills in rightly ordered and properly catechized women a desire to wear a covering, not to mention the fear of displeasing God by not wearing one.
He used to have an even longer article on this issue, which has apparently been removed - actually, a series of articles that first appeared in Catholic Family News a few years back. Presumably copies of those articles can be obtained form CFN.
http://catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/head-covering1.htm
Robert Sungenis?? Isn't he that guy who believes in a geocentric theory of the solar system? That's always fulminating about the Jewish menace? Isn't he a sedevacantist or something?
I wouldn't really look to him as an authority. I looked it up and found this: "In 1976, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the document Inter insigniores in which it specifically stated that as it was a historical matter of discipline, the wearing of veils or headcoverings is no longer binding on women today (Inter insigniores, 4). There is also no requirement in the current Code of Canon Law concerning such attire."
I think I will take the statement of the SCDF over Mr. Sungenis. Of course, any woman who wants to wear a veil, that's fine with me, I'm not going to think she's some sort of schismatic nutjob or something. It's just not my usual custom. However, if I ever do get to go to a Tridentine Mass out of respect, I'll go out and get myself a hat which does not look too goofy.
"Mark Shea is obviously a good man, and he is right that many who call themselves “traditionalists” are a bunch of humorless grouches who seem to spend more time parsing rubrics than loving God and their neighbor"
Just an observation: while I do not doubt that many such people do in fact exist, it seems like every defense of the traditional movement feels the need to qualify itself with "many traditionalists are prigs" or "many traditionalists think only the Tridentine Mass is a valid Eucharistic consecration" in order to be acceptable to the opposing side, and frankly, as a lapsed Catholic who returned to the Church largely guided by "traditionalists" of the more controversial wing of the movement (you know of whom I speak), that has never been my experience.
I have found Tridentine chapels to be welcoming islands of true Christian community in an increasingly dark world. I have only heard one person actually say anything along the lines of "Latin is the language of heaven!" And yes, I have encountered plenty of nuttiness--lay and cleric alike--though I do not find it to be the primary motivation of the community as a whole.
Robert Sungenis?? Isn’t he that guy who believes in a geocentric theory of the solar system? That’s always fulminating about the Jewish menace? Isn’t he a sedevacantist or something?
Re: geocentrism, yes. But his position needs to be evaluated on its own merits, and not against scientific "orthodoxy."
Jewish menace: He does oppose Zionism and those who would make Judaism as a religion equal to Christianity.
And no, he's not a sedevacantist.
Well, I'm against Zionism but the things he says about Jews sound like they come from Dur Sturmer. I mean, he is just positively obsessed with Jews. As far as the sedevacantist thing, I think I have him confused with Gerry Matatics.
As to geocentrism, I think that's pretty much beyond question that it does not hold up scientifically. But if someone wants to believe it, fine. It's sort of like belonging to the Flat Earth Society. Yeah, it's dumb, but harmless, I suppose. Kind of embarrassing when those Hubble space telescope pictures and whatnot come back, but if people want to hold their hands over their ears and go, "La la la la, I can't hear you", that's fine with me, I'm too busy to worry about it.
If the Vatican ever decided to reverse inter insignores, and say women have to wear head coverings, fine, I'd do it, but in the meantime, I think I am on safe ground in ignoring such private opinions as Mr. Sungenis'.
OK, I'm done. Got to get back to my life. Very interesting conversation.
Cort,
Sola Fide is not found in Scripture? It is all over the New Testament. You have to look hard to find works. That is why people always trot out the same verse from James.
As for Sola Scriptura, Jesus quotes Scripture authoritatively several times, including when he is being tempted. He endorses Scripture in John 10:35. "And the Scripture can not be broken" (NIV). And 2 Tim 3:16-17 tells us "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work (NIV)."
Now that is not exactly the same thing as Sola Scriptura, but there is no similar endorsement of Church tradition. The Bible does tell us to follow the "old paths" (Jer 6:16) and to look to what our Fathers did (somewhere in Deuteronomy), but I don't think that is a wholesale endorsement of Church Tradition in the Catholic sense. We should certainly never thumb our nose at tradition.
But are not the Pharisees the object of scorn because they elevated the teachings of man to be on a par with Scripture. How is the Catholic Church's position not Pharisaical?
I am glad that Mr. Nicholas G.P. MOSES has found welcome and true Christian community among traditionalists, and even more glad that he has returned to the Faith.
I did not write what I wrote because I was defending the traditionalist movement and felt a need to qualify myself. I wrote it because I think it is true, and because I deplore the literalist mentality found among some traditionalist just as I deplore it among Protestants.
I would not call myself a traditionalist, although I do live from Tradition as all Catholics do.
And here's to T. Chan for his reason and clarity.
@Red Phillips (162):
But are not the Pharisees the object of scorn because they elevated the teachings of man to be on a par with Scripture. How is the Catholic Church’s position not Pharisaical?
Because Tradition is not the "teachings of man" but the operation of the Holy Spirit in history.
And it is through that operation of the Holy Spirit--through Sacred Tradition--that the canon of the Scripture that you regard as the sole authority came into being.
As to geocentrism, I think that’s pretty much beyond question that it does not hold up scientifically. But if someone wants to believe it, fine. It’s sort of like belonging to the Flat Earth Society. Yeah, it’s dumb, but harmless, I suppose. Kind of embarrassing when those Hubble space telescope pictures and whatnot come back, but if people want to hold their hands over their ears and go, “La la la la, I can’t hear you”, that’s fine with me, I’m too busy to worry about it.
Neither geocentrism or heliocentrism can be verified directly--one must look at an indirect proof--which model explains the data better. Part of his argument is to show that geocentrism can explain the data just as well as heliocentrism, and it is worth considering.
abellio: Thank you for the compliment. I try.
To my Slavic wife & I, the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom would be preferable and more closely tied to both of our personal journeys that either the Tridentine or Novus Ordo -- but unfortunately the nearest Byzantine Rite available is several hours away from us.
Which brings up a question which I wish Shea (& some of the responders here) had addressed: Why do we assume that the (very real & significant) value of aesthetics in liturgy automatically trumps the (*also* very real & significant) value of having a real, geographically-rooted parish?
In other words -- if, say, I hop into my shiny new Lexus and cruise across the commonwealth to attend a Tridentine parish -- while shunning the generally-orthodox but liturgically-tepid parish right down the street from me -- cannot an argument be made that I am to a certain extent participating in the atomizing elements of modernity in the same way that someone who condones liturgical abuses is participating in the degenerative egalitarian elements of modernity?
Nobody with a good car needs to be justified anyhow, right?
Maybe some Bishop could start offering a Latin Mass online....
I'm not saying all this to antagonize anybody on either side of the question, but rather to highlight an overlooked positive aspect of the recent turn of events, an aspect for which we should *all* be appreciative.
I.e., one huge reason why we should be particularly grateful for the Pope's recent move is that he is striving to eliminate the burden of making these sorts of no-win decisions -- "do I go to a liturgically-lukewarm church in my own vicinity, or do I commute to a Latin parish once a week?" -- on the part of we individual Catholics.
I couldn't sleep last night -- for other reasons -- and somehow found myself getting wrapped up around what I read on this thread.
It then hit me as to why Shea's article might be somewhat problematic -- it is really better for any criticisms of traditionalism to come from traditionalists themselves.
Given that Shea seems to identify himself as a Novus Ordo Catholic, it is understandable that lots of traditionalists might feel drawn into a polarized Us v. Them, Novus Ordo v. Traditionalist struggle.
It's much as how Southerners might be inclined to listen to serious criticism from fellow-Southerners (*assuming* they are clearly and unambiguously loyal to the South), yet hostile to even well-intentioned criticism from outsiders.
(OK, OK, granted that I couldn't actually point to any such "well-intentioned criticism" of the South off the top of my head...)
Unless we are talking about a group which we have identified as being simply flat-out enemies of our own, then we should always be cautious about critiquing a group of which we are not members.
The discussion of "the Jewish menace" is ironic, IMO.
Any given Tridentine Catholic stands in a particular danger, I think, of morphing into the Christian version of Jews.
I.e., ghettoized, uber-defensive toward outsiders, and surrounded by reams of magnificent ceremony and brilliant texts -- yet without love.
Evelyn Waugh recognized this danger in his novel *Helena* when he has St. Helena offer up a prayer to the Magi on behalf of all "the learned, the oblique, the delicate."
There's always that danger, in being steeped in the wisdom of the Church Fathers and so on, of coming to identify one's self as "*the* chosen people" -- presumably to the exclusion of other Catholics who submissively follow the lead of the priest in the parish they were born into.
But it seems it would take someone who more clearly embraces the Latin tradition than Shea is, in order to articulate that danger without coming off as an attacker, as yet one more liberalizer.
@Red Phillips (162):
Red, you're wrong on this question. Luther concocted Sola Scripture and Sole Fide, separating religion from morality. As well, you of course know that he falsified a key translation of Romans.
If you want to believe what you believe, by all means do so. But you shouldn't make claims that are simply false. To wit:
"You have to look hard to find works" in the New Testament. You're kidding us, right? Reread it. Start with the Good Samaritan and go from there.
As well, you never answered my questions:
"How do you explain the first 1,500 years of the Church? All those Popes, priests, theologians and laymen were wrong? The sacraments they celebrated were balderdash. Then Luther suddenly divined the truth?"
In other words — if, say, I hop into my shiny new Lexus and cruise across the commonwealth to attend a Tridentine parish — while shunning the generally-orthodox but liturgically-tepid parish right down the street from me — cannot an argument be made that I am to a certain extent participating in the atomizing elements of modernity in the same way that someone who condones liturgical abuses is participating in the degenerative egalitarian elements of modernity?
Let me leave the car out of the question--
I think the moral difficulty should be stated thusly: which has a greater priority -- ensuring your family (and children) have an adequate liturgical spirituality and formation or building up an orthodox parish that does not have such a good grasp of liturgical
practice? Charity is directed towards one's self first (then one's own), and if one's spirituality depends on a certain liturgical piety which in turn depends on how the liturgy is celebrated... I can't say that those who chose to go to an "extraordinary form" parish are choosing wrongly. Besides, there is an opportunity for them to exercise charity towards the fellow members of such a parish, unless they live too far away.
This thread has to be one of the most interesting in which I have been involved during my brief sojourn in the cyber world. "Involved" is perhaps an overstatement, for from the beginning, I understood this thread to be primarily one in which a Catholic issue is being addressed. However, I have learned no little.
Running in the back of my mind has, however, been a speculation about how this thread might look were there a similar Baptist issue.
I have concluded that there is no issue among us Baptist which would rise to the level of the issue of the differences between the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine Mass since liturgy is not, in the traditional Catholic sense, a part of the Baptist experience. As close as we might come - and this "close" is a long way off - would be the lamentation which some of us have that God in far too many Baptist churches is no longer the active recepient and participant in our worship and that the assembled have become "an audience" expecting some type of entertainment. The sanctuary is now referred to as the "auditorium." Folks do not appear to arrive at the worship hour with any sense of awe or reverence as is apparent in dress and demeanor. There are indeed more indicators of this "decay," but the aforementioned give one the flavor.
I do not know of any Baptist who would say that only Baptists could gain salvation. In fact, most would say that salvation has nothing at all to do with being Baptist. Therefore, this aspect of the discussion which has emerged on this thread would not find itself in a Baptist discussion.
Baptists would also not say that salavation is found IN the Church. They would say that Salvation is the only way INTO the Church. Traditionally, Bapists have understood the message of the Bible, the Church herself as the Body and the Bride of the Christ, and the teachings of the Church fathers as Gospel-bringing and salt-and-light-living agents of the Holy Spirit as He through His unction moves people to faith in the redemptive work of the Christ on the Cross and in the Resurection made possible and worthy by that Redemption. Baptist do believe that the Church is universal and eternal.
The issues which divide Baptists, particularly Southern Baptist, have to do with the fact that within almost every local congregation there are Calvinists, Arminians and Apostolics. As long as the local body remains focused on the Christ and His Gospel, being both good disciples and evangilists thereof, there is harmony, the deep differences not withstanding. However, when a local congregation takes its eyes of the Christ, then like Peter walking on the water, the waves of contradiction threaten to tear the local body apart.
It has indeed been an excellent thread. Having learned a lot, I nevertheless have much more to ponder than I have been able to put to rest.
"I think the moral difficulty should be stated thusly: which has a greater priority — ensuring your family (and children) have an adequate liturgical spirituality and formation or building up an orthodox parish that does not have such a good grasp of liturgical practice?"
I agree -- thanks for clarifying my point.
"... if one’s spirituality depends on a certain liturgical piety which in turn depends on how the liturgy is celebrated..."
I also agree, and would never see it as my place to criticize somebody for "parish-shopping", as I believe the term is sometimes used. I have done and will continue to do it myself, without a slightest twinge of concern.
But it should be remembered that this practice is at best a necessary evil taken in response to the modern condition -- my impression is that in ye good olde days the notion of somebody *choosing* his parish would have seemed preposterous. Perhaps I'm mistaken.
The fact that we do, as individuals, choose our own parishes in response to heretical homilies or Spinal Tap's "Listen To The Flower People"-style liturgical music is justified, but still lamentable.
The necessity of such individual choice is an unfortunate concession which must be made to living in a Protestant-derived civilization, IMO.
I would only point out to Mr. Chan that that the other case may hold -- i.e., for some people, cultivation of charity and spirituality may depend not quite so much on having deep and substantive liturgy as on having a certain sense of genuine parish community, which in turn depends at least partially on how geographically-real and neighborly and intimate (vice dispersed) the parish is.
And whether or not they have ties of personal or familial history to said parish, and how much that tie means, and what sort of state the parish is actually in.
Re 167, 171
You are opening a box there. It is something that needs to be examined. There is a widspread congregationalist mindset in this country. You can see it in how people use parish as a synonym for church and a myriad of other ways.
In particular I like how you note that something is indeed lost when one rejects his natural community. I don't care to speculate on anyone's prudential calculation. Suffice it to say it would be nice if more people would recognize they are making a trade off.
And this is the other part of the moto propio that is not as widely discussed. Traditionalists need to be engaged in the parish life. This will not only benefit the Novus Ordo, but it will benefit the Traditionalists. I don't see that effect being as wide in this country as Europe, but I don't think the target of the Motu Propio was the States.
G.S.
But it should be remembered that this practice is at best a necessary evil taken in response to the modern condition — my impression is that in ye good olde days the notion of somebody *choosing* his parish would have seemed preposterous. Perhaps I’m mistaken.
The fact that we do, as individuals, choose our own parishes in response to heretical homilies or Spinal Tap’s “Listen To The Flower People”-style liturgical music is justified, but still lamentable.
The necessity of such individual choice is an unfortunate concession which must be made to living in a Protestant-derived civilization, IMO.
I agree--it is a lamentable situation, and hard choices are involved. Indeed, doing the right thing for the lay faithful requires perhaps heroic virtue.
While the various factors leading up to the present crisis are many, it does seem to me that this sort of choice is made even more extreme in the United States, because the natural foundations of community are even more fragmented here than in Europe?
I would only point out to Mr. Chan that that the other case may hold — i.e., for some people, cultivation of charity and spirituality may depend not quite so much on having deep and substantive liturgy as on having a certain sense of genuine parish community, which in turn depends at least partially on how geographically-real and neighborly and intimate (vice dispersed) the parish is.
Agreed--either their spirituality does not have a strong liturgical component (beyond attending Mass and receiving communion, which isn't the same thing) or if they have a liturgical spirituality it is one founded upon the ordinray form. However, I would venture that for most Latin-rite Catholics this isn't a consideration either. The parish church is just somewhere they go every Sunday to fulfill a requirement, and 6.9 days out of 7 they live like non-Catholics.
Scott,
"Because Tradition is not the “teachings of man” but the operation of the Holy Spirit in history."
The problem with that is that it is not falsifiable. It is a matter of faith. I guess so is Sola Scriptura, which is why this debate will never be solved. It is a matter of competing faiths. But Protestants believe that Catholic Tradition actually contradicts Scripture. It doesn't just add to it. Doesn't there have to be some standard by which the tradition is measured? What if the Pope said tomorrow (acting Ex Caththedra in his role as the Pope) that it is now necessary to sacrifice goats? You would not accept that. But on what basis would you reject it? Because it is not in accord with the plain language or spirit of the New Testament. Of course, you will likewise ask me how I know my interpretation of Scripture is correct without some final authority.
Cort,
Of course there are works in the Bible. We are certainly admonished to do good works. They are the natural product of Faith. My point is that works are not spoken of in terms of a precondition of or augmentation to Faith in the work of salvation.
“How do you explain the first 1,500 years of the Church? All those Popes, priests, theologians and laymen were wrong? The sacraments they celebrated were balderdash. Then Luther suddenly divined the truth?”
As a result of the fallen state of man, the clear, plain and simple message of the Gospel was rather quickly subverted. Look at what the Bible records about the early New Testament Church and compare it to the Catholic liturgy and doctrine that arose later. Clearly much was added. The Gospel is "a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks." One reason it was a stumbling block is because it was so radically simple and different. Every other religious system is based on works or some combination of faith and works. Christianity alone breaks that mold and says it is about belief/faith. Man does not seem to be able to resist the temptation to add to that simple message.
In the minds of many being an "active lay person" means having a title and being part of an "official parish ministry." A distortion of the Christian vocation.
oops (175) was an addendum to my last post, and not a response to Mr. Phillips
I prefer "Gimme Some Money" to "Flower People," but neither one belongs in church.
Protestants don't deny good works; we see them as the necessary fruit of faith. Nor do we separate faith and morals: faith without works is dead.
"Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh (Romans 9:5). From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, 'Your seed shall be as the stars of heaven.' All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen."
"Agreed–either their spirituality does not have a strong liturgical component (beyond attending Mass and receiving communion, which isn’t the same thing) or if they have a liturgical spirituality it is one founded upon the ordinary form."
Yes, right -- although what I meant to particularly emphasize was that it is not inconceivable for a Novus Ordo parish to have a strong community (i.e., "love thy neighbor")dimension to its spirituality.
I was highlighting a possible asset of a Novus Ordo parish (community), rather than its weak point (liturgy).
In other words to expand upon my point -- liturgy is not in fact the *only* aspect of spirituality, which is the beginning of a response to Mr. Moses "beauty-is-truth" argument.
A more elaborate rebuttal of "beauty-is-truth" would commence with asking Mr. Moses how many women he has encountered who are both beautiful *and* virtuous.
Ideally the contemplative should nourish the active component, and the latter provides material for the former. Liturgy belongs to the former, while the practice of charity towards one's fellow members of the parish, as well as one's lay apostolate, belongs to the latter...
All Catholics would profit from reading Lambert Beauduin or Virgil Michel on the link between the liturgy and the active life.
For those who are interested, Fr. Beauduin's Liturgy: The Life of the Church can be purchased from St. Augustine Press:
http://www.staugustine.net/liturgy.html
@Red Phillips (174):
The problem with that is that it is not falsifiable. It is a matter of faith.
Indeed. And we have faith in the words of our Lord, Who said that He would send His Spirit to guide and comfort us. The problem for those who wish to deny that Sacred Tradition is the action of the Holy Spirit in history is that they have to declare that the Church went off the rails very early, because the Fathers, East and West, believed this.
I would of course agree that there is an inherent connection between beauty and truth -- what I'm pointing out is that it is not entirely a 1:1 correlation.
I do not mean to dismiss the valid point of Mr. Moses, which as I understand it is something along the lines of "by their fruits ye shall know them". In other words, a brief consideration of Stalinist architecture should indicate something about the character of the Soviet regime, even if one were utterly ignorant, historically and philosophically, of the principles and deeds of that regime.
But I am raising a counterpoint -- again, the correlation is not 1:1.
My own experiences with agnostic devotees of "Great Books" and "high culture" has demonstrated to me sufficiently that a person can relish beauty while still being deeply in error.
To my understanding, the brew that lead to the French Revolution was not boiled up by banal populists with bad tastes, but by refined and tasteful aristocrats whose wills were warped.
As someone who unknowingly attended a Novus Ordo parish which bordered on heresy, I have to say I sympathize greatly with all of the traditionalist Catholics who cling to the Tridentene Rite for its beauty and ability to uplift souls.
I would only like to remark that one of the reasons I am Catholic is because of the Novus Ordo mass. Being raised by an Orthodox mother and a Catholic father in the former Soviet Union, on an aesthetic level I appreciate the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom far more than any mass in which I have ever participated. Yet, my childhood memories of the Orthodox Church are also mingled with a very reverent celebration of the Novus Ordo mass in Russian, not Latin and not Church Slavonic.
A true community formed on the mud floor of the garage in which the mass was celebrated (only later was the parish able to afford a concrete floor). Some of the people there, like my father and I, had not been able to attend a mass for generations and had to be educated in the most fundamental aspects of the Faith (my father likes to tell the story about how the priest once gave a homily on the fact that the proper way to address a priest is "Father," not simply by his last name as if the parishoners were his budies).
And only much later, as I kneeled in preparation to receive the Eucharist during a Tridentine Rite did I realize that had the Franciscan missionary said the mass in the extraordinary form, it is unlikely that I would have stayed Catholic, for the simple reason that it was alien.
Ideally, of course, my father would be risking his job and the welfare of his family by attending an Eastern Rite liturgy, which would have solidified the bond between two very organic traditions I had inherited.
But, in its absence, the Novus Ordo mass acted as a bridge of sorts between the East and the West. To this day, having lived in the West for the majority of my life, I still find the Novus Ordo mass more comforting than the Tridintine, and it is not because I think Novus Ordo is more beautiful.
Quite simply, because it is what it is: the ordinary rite.
P.S. As a side note, the "bordering on heresy" Novus Ordo parish I refered to was a parish in America, not the one which brought me into the Catholic Church.
Mr. Phillips,
"What if the Pope said tomorrow (acting Ex Caththedra in his role as the Pope) that it is now necessary to sacrifice goats?"
When speaking Ex Cathedra - a remarkably rare happenstance, it must be acknowledged - the Pope is incapable of stating anything that contradicts Sacred Tradition, as he is guided by the Holy Spirit and speaking as the Vicar of Christ. Therefore, an Ex Cathedra statement is an infallible utterance. Likewise, the scenario you describe is, thus, impossible.
As I've stated elsewhere in other posts to Chronicles, it may be instructive if our Protestant bretheren would consider the doctrine of Papal Infallibility as a governor on a given Pontiff's utterances rather than some wild-eyed claim of superhuman ability. Infallibility by its very nature precludes the Pope from contradicting the deposit of Faith and Sacred Tradition - a marvelous example of the efficacy of Tradition, in and of itself, not to mention Authority. We have no fear that the Pope will one day ordain women, authorize abortion and euthanasia or posit that Christ didn't rise from the dead.
And we needn't even speculate as to which authority a Protestant has recourse. Anyone outside the Catholic communion would not even have a Bible to distort were it not for St. Jerome and 1500-odd years of patrimony, authority and Tradition. Please, do not interpret a sarcastic or vituperative tone here - half of my family is Church of Ireland. I am merely stating an historical fact which should edify all of us. It is no mean feat to turn 1500 years of history on its head and to claim that from the time of the Apostles until Luther/Calvin/Henry, the world had gotten it all wrong.
But back to the issue at hand. I'm one of those forty-year-olds who grew up with the Novus Ordo here in Chicago. Not until I had reached my early twenties did I have the unmitigated joy of assisting at a Tridentine Mass at St. John Cantius Church.
The question remains: Is the Novus Ordo invalid? Absolutely not. Is it susceptible to horrific abuse and heretical deformation, where as the Tridentine is not? Absolutely. Is the Tridentine a superior liturgy? In the sense that it conveys the fullness of our faith and is impervious to innovation, most assuredly.
The problem with the Novus Ordo is its banality, quite frankly. And this observation in no way wishes to impugn its validity or potential for beauty. What we must identify are the true villains, and in our unhappy situation it is the USCCB. No honest American Catholic can dispute that the US bishops - as a body - are perhaps the weakest collectivity of men to be found anywhere in the solar system. They are the ones who dumbed-down the translations (witness the outrageously ridiculous arguments against a more dignified translation of the missal at last year's convocation in DC, annually televised by EWTN); who lobbied for communion-in-the-hand (a rank abuse and perhaps the single most destructive force against belief in the Real Presence); who pressaged altar girls (a logical non-starter; women will never be ordained, regardless of whatever the tortured minds of McBrien, Bernardin and Weakland fantasized, so why encourage these poor misguided girls while alienating the boys in a rightful minor order toward priesthood?); and who have tolerated every other issue, ranging from irritant to apostasy, while churning out insipid, trendy 'letters' on pop issues that no one will read, save the editorial staff of the Chicago Catholic New World?
In other words, had we be given a dignified translation - something akin to the Anglican Use rite of recent vintage - much of the suffering and alienation could have been averted. I agree with Mrs. G.S. - the Byzantine Rite, the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in the vernacular, is a beautiful liturgy.
Perhaps our Holy Father will get his (and our ) wish, and have the wide application of Tridentine liturgies inform the substance and practice of the oft-miserable Novus Ordo. More exalted language, more humility, no New Christy Minstrels muzak and a revival of reverence for our Eucharistic Lord - which presupposes mile-long lines outside of the confessionals - will repair a well-intentioned liturgy to its proper place.
We have suffered enough. Onward, then, with a renewed Novus Ordo and a majestic Tridentine!
Mr. Muza,
One thing I would say in response is this...the reformers, and especially Luther did not think that the Church had been entirely wrong in that period. In fact, she had been right about much and the responsible reformers (again, Luther in particular) wanted to retain all that was correct. Their assertion was that particular doctrines, especially justification, had become distorted and that the Church needed to RETURN to the teachings of the fathers...not dispute them.
This of course brings up another point of dispute among Protestants and Catholics...did the Church truly have a complete unity of teaching up to that point? The obvious answer is "no." So, I respectfully submit that it is a misrepresentation to state that Luther interrupted 1500 years of unified Tradition.
With that said, it is clear that many movements descending from the Reformation have become ridiculous and heretical. Protestants would benefit from an appreciation of Tradition...just not a Tradition which claims to be equal with Scripture (actually, functionally superior in practice). One odd thing is that most evangelical protestants would eschew Lutherans (and even the more liturgical Reformed groups) because those groups are too "Catholic."
The point is this...true protestants don't disdain Tradition, we just see it having a secondary role in the life of the Church.
>>Indeed. And we have faith in the words of our Lord, Who said that He would send His Spirit to guide and comfort us. The problem for those who wish to deny that Sacred Tradition is the action of the Holy Spirit in history is that they have to declare that the Church went off the rails very early, because the Fathers, East and West, believed this.
"Indeed. And we have faith in the words of our Lord, Who said that He would send His Spirit to guide and comfort us. The problem for those who wish to deny that Sacred Tradition is the action of the Holy Spirit in history is that they have to declare that the Church went off the rails very early, because the Fathers, East and West, believed this."
"Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them."
Paul the Apostle to the Ephesian elders, Acts 20:28-30.
Mr Musa,
What you are saying is : "the pope is infallible when he speaks "ex cathedra" except when he is not infallible" but then he is not speaking "ex cathedra"
Ok....and who decides if he was speaking "infallible ex cathedra"
or "just erring off cathedra" ? you ? the bishops ? Next popes ?
YOU : "Anyone outside the Catholic communion would not even have a Bible to distort were it not for St. Jerome and 1500-odd years of patrimony, authority and Tradition."
ME : Without the Jews we wouldn't have the Old Testament but
the good work that the rabbi's did in preserving the Scripture
doesn't legitimize their "patrimony, authority and Tradition" and
neither does the good work concerning the New Testament
legitimize the authority of the white robed ursupator in Rome or the rituals and traditions of the Roman Catholic Church.
And maybe it is interesting to mention that it wasn't the "pope" or
better the bishop of Rome (because in the second century off course nobody had ever heard of such a thing as an "infallible pope") who came with the first canon but a gnostic heretic Marcion.This Marcion was the first to make a list with "apostolic writings inspied by the Holy Ghost" (the gospel of Luke and 10 letters of Paul) and by doing so he started the process of "canonisation".
Concerning Jerome : as Luther in the 1520's Jerome did a good job by translating the Bible in the vulgar language (Luther in German Jerome in Latin) although both translations contains errors and mistakes .
YOU : It is no mean feat to turn 1500 years of history on its head and to claim that from the time of the Apostles until Luther/Calvin/Henry, the world had gotten it all wrong.
ME : You forget John Wycleff and John Huss so the world was in dark for only 1400 years
(although Peter Valdo... 
)
My excuses for my poor English.
Mark Depré.
It is no mean feat to turn 1500 years of history on its head and to claim that from the time of the Apostles until Luther/Calvin/Henry, the world had gotten it all wrong.
Well...you forget Wycliff and Huss
Mr. Anderson,
You are quite right - there have always been those who would critique the Church's positions or (Heaven forbid) doctrines as being more or less faithful to some understanding of Sacred Scripture or Tradition. But I would like to suggest to you, if you'd be so gracious, that never before had the gamut of contraposition - from the well-intentioned to the malcontented - represented a mass movement of that had absented itself from the Church's patrimony. In other words, I don't agree that the disunity of teaching is obvious, given that the violence - both rhetorical and otherwise - that characterized the disjunction of theological thought had become a malevolent force at once outside the Church.
Luther, Calvin and all the rest at first operated within the Church, but were ultimately prepared to disavow Holy Mother Church book, bell and candle. Surely there can be no morally defensible rationale -differences of theological or practical nuances aside - to take such actions. Rebuke your brother for his own good, but do not separate yourself (and, more importantly, countless others) from the One True Church.
In any event, we also must endeavor not to isolate the Reformation as an entirely theological phenomenon; the Reformation would not have been possible (or successful, as viewed from the reformers' perspective) without the concomitant rise of the nation-state and attendant political philosophy.
Your observations and reverence for Tradition are sound, and I'm most grateful for your magnanimity. I strive for such virtues myself.
Mr. Anderson (186) represents Luther and other "reformers" as much more benign characters than they were. As well, I remind him that the Bible came from the Church. The Church did not come from the Bible.
Mr. Depre,
I didn't forget; neither Hus nor Wycliffe started a revolution that culminated in a new nationalism for their respective countries. What Luther and Henry ostensibly accomplished was the fracturing of Christendom along supranational-cum-sectarian lines. Again, their reform was not merely theological, but also politically expedient.
I must admit your first remark regarding infallibility leaves me more than a bit confused. When the Pope speaks in regards to faith/morals and makes a binding, solemn pronouncement on same - Ex Cathedra statement - he is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit. The Pope can - as many have done so throughout the centuries - make mistakes or be completely wrong regarding mundane matters of state or taste, as any other human being can be. We individually do not possess that special charism reserved for the Supreme Pontiff.
St. Jerome did more than merely translate the Bible from NT Greek into Latin; he also compiled the texts, which have come down to us in the authoritative canon endorsed by the early ecumenical councils.
God bless you for your splendid use of English. You are infinitely more successful than I would be in French, German, Polish or Italian!
All the best and pax tecum!
Mr. Kirkwood,
I believe you have misunderstood my position. I don't consider the actions of Luther or any reformer to be benign, but I consider at least some of them to have been necessary. Certainly they made mistakes and promoted contradictions...just as the Roman Church had done within her own bounds for centuries. Also, they truly represented Christian orthodoxy on many grounds...just as the Roman Church had done within for many centuries.
I also would not deny other motivations for the actions of many in the Reformation. There was certainly a cornucopia of reasons-as varied as the geography and personalities behind them. And again, necessary in many (not all) cases.
There had been various and strong calls for reform in the Roman Church for generations, and I believe the ball toward the Reformation got seriously rolling as early as Cluny. Thank the Lord for St. Jerome and his work in the Vulgate, and thank the Lord that He used even pagans like Erasmus to clarify the Bible's teaching even more. Many factors have been used in the Divine hands over the centuries to restore the wayward group of people called Christians.
Regarding "the Bible came from the Church, not the Church from the Bible," you are correct in the sense of publication. But, the Bible comes from the Holy Spirit and it is He who gives the Scripture authority...not any man in Rome or Wittenburg or Geneva or anywhere else. In the Bible one thing is clear, it is the appeal to the Scriptures which makes a teaching definitive.
In a belated attempt to address the actual topic of this thread...a topic on which I have little experience...I say if you are going to be Roman Catholic then be a serious Roman Catholic. When Pope Benedict quoted a Crusader and called a spade a spade, I applauded him. Sadly, he equivocated soon after. Would that all arms of Christendom could make such strong statements...at a microphone or in the liturgy...and stand by them. I have been anathematized by Trent, and so I assume my denial of all things Tridentine means any true Roman Catholic would have to view me as condemned. I am confident in Christ's promises to me and plan to rely on nothing but those on the final day. But, until then, give me an honest Catholic who will tell me what he believes over a soft Catholic (or protestant) who doesn't even know what the word "liturgy" means or why the two of us disagree.
Well, it seems that everyone has gotten exhausted from all the e-discussion.
But in case anybody has any thoughts about it, I figured I'd highlight a point that my wife mentioned, and that Mr. Muza brought up tangentially -- the language barrier.
"had we been given a dignified translation - something akin to the Anglican Use rite of recent vintage -- much of the suffering and alienation could have been averted."
How do we respond to the fact that to most today -- both Catholics and potential-converts -- the Latin language is alien?
Now, I agree with what I suspect most here would say -- that unfamiliarity and lack of fluency in classical languages reflects degeneration in our society.
And I realize that in the long-term one thing for which we might hope for and work for is the revival of Latin.
But in dealing with an actual flesh-and-blood soul in the here-and-now, it seems unsatisfactory to simply say, "Well, you should learn Latin -- then you'd appreciate how great the Rite is," and leave it at that.
In the South in particular it seems that the Orthodox, using the vernacular, have an inherent advantage vis-a-vis proselytization -- given that the Catholic services offered to potential Southern convert are too often either Novus Ordo services of the worst sort on the one hand, or a properly-sacred but incomprehensible Tridentine Rite on the other.
From the point of view of the Southerner the former is obviously irreverent, whereas the latter could consist of prayers to Osiris for all he knows.
I realize such a feeling in response to the Tridentine Rite is narrow-minded and foolishly insular, but again keep in mind that we are dealing with real human beings with real cultural and historical baggage -- and we should care about them.
As a convert myself I still have to overcome residual ingrained reactions vis-a-vis confessional booths and offering prayers to Mary and so on -- and this is not a matter of will or understanding or acceptance on my part, but just my conditioning.
So I can sympathize with those who have difficulty overcoming subconscious, knee-jerk paranoia about "foreign" or "alien" religious practices, and strange tongues.
I agree particularly with the last 4 lines of #185, which sums up the disagreement I myself would have with Mr. Shea's article.
I.e., even if you are a Novus Ordo Catholic, the revival of the Latin Mass still *does* especially affect you --- hopefully by providing the Novus Ordo with a firmer root and anchor, over the long term.
Is celebration of the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular permissible?
Re: 196
At the present moment, no.
However, nothing is to prevent the missal from being revised in the future to allow it.
@Mr. Anderson (193)
If the Bible, particularly the New Testament, is the only source for everything we need to know to be Christians, how, pray tell, did Christians know what the definitive Chrisitan teachings were, and how to apply them, before the New Testament was written and the Bible was compiled?
Again, you misrepresent. Sola Scriptura is the notion that the Bible is the ultimate guide, the norm, the final authority. It does not require that we not receive wisdom, teaching or understanding via other ways...especially via the Church. It simply states that all other methods are to submit to Scripture. How did they know? The presence of the Apostles, the Holy Spirit, the proper interpretation of the Old Testament (as handed down by the Apostles multiple times in the New Testament). The fact that those were the methods then does not require that the Church be our ultimate interpretive factor since we do, in fact, have the canon.
And now comes, "Alright...how did we get the canon?" The canon is inspired, it isn't determined by the Church on her own...she is guided to its selection by the Holy Spirit. With that we once again reach an impasse. Still, I think we should at least accurately represent the side we oppose...burning a straw man has little purpose.
There are a lot of hypochondriacs who really fancy their shoes!!!
@Jeff Anderson (199):
"The canon is inspired, it isn’t determined by the Church on her own…she is guided to its selection by the Holy Spirit."
Absolutely--that's the Catholic position. So when does that guidance by the Holy Spirit stop? And if it doesn't, where have we Catholics gone wrong?