Post by hibernicus on Feb 17, 2012 0:43:09 GMT
I saw a copy of the January 2012 CHRISTIAN ORDER recently and commented on it on the "Irish Catholic Paper" thread. There was one aspect of it I didn't mention because it slipped my mind at the time, but I think it is relevant to this thread.
The issue has an editorial denouncing the Post-Vatican II Popes for producing a great deal of incomprehensible verbiage and doing nothing to enforce the doctrines they preach. The author stated that the only possible solution will be to junk it all, including the Novus Ordo, and go back to the way things were before the Council.
The author expressed extreme apprehension at the prospect that a compromise settlement would involve the Vatican tinkering with the TLM and moving towards a hybrid form. He declared that having liturgical choices and options was itself a major cause of our problems because it reinforces the sense that everything depends on our will, not God's. Hence, he argued, the only workable solution will be to abolish the NO and return to the TLM exclusively.
Now, the author has identified a real problem - the multiplication of liturgical options, legitimate and illegitimate, does indeed reinforce the sense of the liturgy as human creation rather than participation in the Eternal Sacrifice, and we will need to move back towards a "Say the Black - Do the Red" mentality. [For those not in the know - Missals print/printed the Mass text in black and the rubrics - instructions on what the priest should do at specific points - in red. The TLM rubrics are much more specific and detailed than those of the NO, thus limiting the scope for priestly "creativity".]
The problems with the CHRISTIAN ORDER solution are threefold. First, it is never going to happen; the Pope is never going to discontinue the NO and revert to the TLM exclusively.
Secondly, even if the Pope did do such a thing, it would not have the desired effect. It would simply be seen as an arbitrary exercise of the papal will (it could not retrospectively abolish the fact that the NO had existed, or the possibility that a future Pope might revert to it or use Paul VI as a precedent for creating his own liturgy); it would encounter massive resistance within the Church, with the secular media acting as cheerleaders; the infrastructure is not in place for an abrupt changeover from NO to TLM. Look how many trads refused to accept Paul Vi's imposition of the NO - and orthodox Catholics are by nature more deferential than the liberal variety - do they really think those who uphold the NO including very many who are perfectly orthodox and who adhere to it because it is what they are used to and because it formed them, would just roll over and submit? Do they think such people should just be asked to roll over and submit, and treated as if they were of no account? Have we learned nothing from the harm that was done by the attempt to suppress the TLM/ Do Mr Pead and his contributors think persecution is OK just so long as they are the persecutors and not the persecuted?
I've cited some parables that trads should bear in mind. Here's another one:
Then Peter came and said to him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Until seven times?"
Jesus said to him, "I don't tell you until seven times, but, until seventy times seven. Therefore the Kingdom of Heaven is like a certain king, who wanted to reconcile accounts with his servants. When he had begun to reconcile, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. But because he couldn't pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, with his wife, his children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. The servant therefore fell down and knelt before him, saying, 'Lord, have patience with me, and I will repay you all!' The lord of that servant, being moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.
"But that servant went out, and found one of his fellow servants, who owed him one hundred denarii, and he grabbed him, and took him by the throat, saying, 'Pay me what you owe!'
"So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, 'Have patience with me, and I will repay you!' He would not, but went and cast him into prison, until he should pay back that which was due. So when his fellow servants saw what was done, they were exceedingly sorry, and came and told to their lord all that was done. Then his lord called him in, and said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt, because you begged me. Shouldn't you also have had mercy on your fellow servant, even as I had mercy on you?' His lord was angry, and delivered him to the tormentors, until he should pay all that was due to him. So my heavenly Father will also do to you, if you don't each forgive your brother from your hearts for his misdeeds."
— Matthew 18:21-35, World English Bible
Thirdly, even if the TLM were to return to universal usage, it could not abolish the sort of variations that existed before Vatican II (e.g. the dialogue Mass and other liturgical experiments, which were developing organically beforehand; even if all these were specifically forbidden I doubt if new variants could be kept from arising; ethnic parishes - which are a natural product of migration, which is happening on a larger scale than ever; the presence of Eastern Rites in the West, unless these are to be forcibly suppressed outside their traditional homelands, and I suspect the CO types would like nothing better than to follow the approach pursued with such outstanding results by Archbishop John Ireland of Minnesota in the nineteenth century...
EXTRACT
Relations with the Greek-Catholics
In 1891, Ireland refused to accept the credentials of Greek-Catholic priest Alexis Toth, citing the decree that married priests of the Eastern Catholic Churches were not permitted to function in the Catholic Church in the United States,[16] despite Toth being a widower. Ireland then forbade Toth to minister to his own parishioners,[17] despite the fact that Toth had jurisdiction from his own Bishop, and did not depend on Ireland. Ireland was also involved in efforts to expel all Eastern Catholic clergy from the United States of America.[18] Forced into an impasse, Toth went on to lead thousands of Greek-Catholics to leave the Catholic Church to join the Russian Orthodox Church.[19] Because of this, Archbishop Ireland is sometimes referred to, ironically, as "The Father of the Orthodox Church in America." Marvin R. O'Connell, author of a biography on Ireland, summarizes the situation by stating that "if Ireland's advocacy of the blacks displayed him at his best, his belligerence toward the Greek Catholics showed him at his bull-headed worst."[20]
END
If the TLM were ever to become the norm in the Latin Rite again, and no-one alive will see it, it will come by keeping alive some sort of tradition within the Church as seed for a future liturgical revival a la Gueranger. Demanding everything at once and refusing to settle for anything less is an excellent way to end up with nothing.
The issue has an editorial denouncing the Post-Vatican II Popes for producing a great deal of incomprehensible verbiage and doing nothing to enforce the doctrines they preach. The author stated that the only possible solution will be to junk it all, including the Novus Ordo, and go back to the way things were before the Council.
The author expressed extreme apprehension at the prospect that a compromise settlement would involve the Vatican tinkering with the TLM and moving towards a hybrid form. He declared that having liturgical choices and options was itself a major cause of our problems because it reinforces the sense that everything depends on our will, not God's. Hence, he argued, the only workable solution will be to abolish the NO and return to the TLM exclusively.
Now, the author has identified a real problem - the multiplication of liturgical options, legitimate and illegitimate, does indeed reinforce the sense of the liturgy as human creation rather than participation in the Eternal Sacrifice, and we will need to move back towards a "Say the Black - Do the Red" mentality. [For those not in the know - Missals print/printed the Mass text in black and the rubrics - instructions on what the priest should do at specific points - in red. The TLM rubrics are much more specific and detailed than those of the NO, thus limiting the scope for priestly "creativity".]
The problems with the CHRISTIAN ORDER solution are threefold. First, it is never going to happen; the Pope is never going to discontinue the NO and revert to the TLM exclusively.
Secondly, even if the Pope did do such a thing, it would not have the desired effect. It would simply be seen as an arbitrary exercise of the papal will (it could not retrospectively abolish the fact that the NO had existed, or the possibility that a future Pope might revert to it or use Paul VI as a precedent for creating his own liturgy); it would encounter massive resistance within the Church, with the secular media acting as cheerleaders; the infrastructure is not in place for an abrupt changeover from NO to TLM. Look how many trads refused to accept Paul Vi's imposition of the NO - and orthodox Catholics are by nature more deferential than the liberal variety - do they really think those who uphold the NO including very many who are perfectly orthodox and who adhere to it because it is what they are used to and because it formed them, would just roll over and submit? Do they think such people should just be asked to roll over and submit, and treated as if they were of no account? Have we learned nothing from the harm that was done by the attempt to suppress the TLM/ Do Mr Pead and his contributors think persecution is OK just so long as they are the persecutors and not the persecuted?
I've cited some parables that trads should bear in mind. Here's another one:
Then Peter came and said to him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Until seven times?"
Jesus said to him, "I don't tell you until seven times, but, until seventy times seven. Therefore the Kingdom of Heaven is like a certain king, who wanted to reconcile accounts with his servants. When he had begun to reconcile, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. But because he couldn't pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, with his wife, his children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. The servant therefore fell down and knelt before him, saying, 'Lord, have patience with me, and I will repay you all!' The lord of that servant, being moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.
"But that servant went out, and found one of his fellow servants, who owed him one hundred denarii, and he grabbed him, and took him by the throat, saying, 'Pay me what you owe!'
"So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, 'Have patience with me, and I will repay you!' He would not, but went and cast him into prison, until he should pay back that which was due. So when his fellow servants saw what was done, they were exceedingly sorry, and came and told to their lord all that was done. Then his lord called him in, and said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt, because you begged me. Shouldn't you also have had mercy on your fellow servant, even as I had mercy on you?' His lord was angry, and delivered him to the tormentors, until he should pay all that was due to him. So my heavenly Father will also do to you, if you don't each forgive your brother from your hearts for his misdeeds."
— Matthew 18:21-35, World English Bible
Thirdly, even if the TLM were to return to universal usage, it could not abolish the sort of variations that existed before Vatican II (e.g. the dialogue Mass and other liturgical experiments, which were developing organically beforehand; even if all these were specifically forbidden I doubt if new variants could be kept from arising; ethnic parishes - which are a natural product of migration, which is happening on a larger scale than ever; the presence of Eastern Rites in the West, unless these are to be forcibly suppressed outside their traditional homelands, and I suspect the CO types would like nothing better than to follow the approach pursued with such outstanding results by Archbishop John Ireland of Minnesota in the nineteenth century...
EXTRACT
Relations with the Greek-Catholics
In 1891, Ireland refused to accept the credentials of Greek-Catholic priest Alexis Toth, citing the decree that married priests of the Eastern Catholic Churches were not permitted to function in the Catholic Church in the United States,[16] despite Toth being a widower. Ireland then forbade Toth to minister to his own parishioners,[17] despite the fact that Toth had jurisdiction from his own Bishop, and did not depend on Ireland. Ireland was also involved in efforts to expel all Eastern Catholic clergy from the United States of America.[18] Forced into an impasse, Toth went on to lead thousands of Greek-Catholics to leave the Catholic Church to join the Russian Orthodox Church.[19] Because of this, Archbishop Ireland is sometimes referred to, ironically, as "The Father of the Orthodox Church in America." Marvin R. O'Connell, author of a biography on Ireland, summarizes the situation by stating that "if Ireland's advocacy of the blacks displayed him at his best, his belligerence toward the Greek Catholics showed him at his bull-headed worst."[20]
END
If the TLM were ever to become the norm in the Latin Rite again, and no-one alive will see it, it will come by keeping alive some sort of tradition within the Church as seed for a future liturgical revival a la Gueranger. Demanding everything at once and refusing to settle for anything less is an excellent way to end up with nothing.