|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Nov 30, 2023 9:19:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Nov 30, 2023 9:22:19 GMT
Meanwhile, one of the so-called traditionalists posting in the RORATE CAELI comboxes is calling Pope Francis worse than Alexander VI because the latter didn't monkey with the liturgy. Nothing like a sense of proportion, is there? Just happened to see this. I think there is a lot of snapshot traditionalists out there. They are, to my mind, the traditional Catholic world's answer to Bible Bingo among Fundamentalists. They only see what they want to see in the Church's two thousand year tradition.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 2, 2023 0:33:06 GMT
One point about the dismissal of Bishop Strickland is the speed with which what was seen as one of Vatican II's greatest accomplishments - clarifying that bishops are not mere delegates of the Pope but possess authority in their own right as successors of the Apostles - has been junked. Another point that might be borne in mind is that this shows up the origins of canon law in classical Roman Law. By setting aside any canonical process in dismissing bishops (and in other instances) Pope Francis is behaving like a Roman emperor or an early modern king (Philip II comes to mind) who can dispense himself from the law when he considers it necessary. The Pope always has this power but in recent times it has rarely been exercised in practice. BTW note how sympathetic media press coverage of the treatment of Cardinal Burke refers to the withdrawal of his salary and apartment as taking away his "privileges" as if these represented some sort of personal perks rather than the normal treatment of a cardinal resident in Rome.
|
|
|
Post by annie on Dec 27, 2023 23:50:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 9, 2024 9:32:23 GMT
From the article, quoting Peter Seewald: "As a South American and a Jesuit, he (Pope Francis) has erased much of what was precious and dear to Ratzinger. Decisions were mostly made autocratically by a small circle of followers. Suffice it to recall the ban on the Tridentine Mass. Benedict had built a small bridge to a largely forgotten treasure island, which until then had only been accessible through difficult terrain. It was a matter close to the German Pope’s heart and there was really no reason to tear down this bridge again. It was obviously a demonstration of the new power. The subsequent purge of staff completed the picture." From Pope Francis's letter on Traditiones Custodes: "Regrettably, the pastoral objective of my Predecessors, who had intended “to do everything possible to ensure that all those who truly possessed the desire for unity would find it possible to remain in this unity or to rediscover it anew”, has often been seriously disregarded. An opportunity offered by St. John Paul II and, with even greater magnanimity, by Benedict XVI, intended to recover the unity of an ecclesial body with diverse liturgical sensibilities, was exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division." Isn't this EXACTLY what happened? I'm not at all baffled by TC. Whether it was proportionate is another question, but I do understand its motivation.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jan 10, 2024 12:58:54 GMT
From the article, quoting Peter Seewald: "As a South American and a Jesuit, he (Pope Francis) has erased much of what was precious and dear to Ratzinger. Decisions were mostly made autocratically by a small circle of followers. Suffice it to recall the ban on the Tridentine Mass. Benedict had built a small bridge to a largely forgotten treasure island, which until then had only been accessible through difficult terrain. It was a matter close to the German Pope’s heart and there was really no reason to tear down this bridge again. It was obviously a demonstration of the new power. The subsequent purge of staff completed the picture." From Pope Francis's letter on Traditiones Custodes: "Regrettably, the pastoral objective of my Predecessors, who had intended “to do everything possible to ensure that all those who truly possessed the desire for unity would find it possible to remain in this unity or to rediscover it anew”, has often been seriously disregarded. An opportunity offered by St. John Paul II and, with even greater magnanimity, by Benedict XVI, intended to recover the unity of an ecclesial body with diverse liturgical sensibilities, was exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division." Isn't this EXACTLY what happened? I'm not at all baffled by TC. Whether it was proportionate is another question, but I do understand its motivation. To give a simple answer, no that's not what happened. The trad movement is far from squeaky clean, but I think what TC was about was reacting to its expansion and mainstreaming.
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Jan 12, 2024 7:52:19 GMT
I think the problem here was that the policies of both John Paul II and Benedict XVI we're not just about building a bridge towards groups like the SSPX, Campos and other groups, it was also about the traditional Roman rite in its own right, which both popes wanted to preserve as a living entity. Francis has opted to interpret the measures in a very restrictive way.
There is certainly an element in the traditional world that has an exaggerated opinion of it's size and strength. For example, I have read in the past successively that one third of Mass going Catholics in France go to traditional Masses, then it was half, then it was a majority and then, courtesy of an award winning First Things contributer, within twenty years, a majority of French priests would be saying the TLM. In reality, about 5% of French parishes offer the TLM, but their congratulations are more engaged and they are producing more vocations. For information, the SSPX are included in these statistics.
There is certainly a "head the ball" element among trades and anyone involved in the trad movement will tell you it abounds in Admiral Jellicoes, by which I mean people who can lose the war in an afternoon. What I mean is painstaking diplomatic work can be blown by one foolhardy statement, usually by people not engaged. For example, the LMSI, when it was still governed by responsible people, put a lot of work into putting the annual Knock pilgrimage on a formal footing (one of the conditions being that it was not an LMSI pilgrimage). When one lady at the Mass in 2002 began approaching the late Mgr Quinn and others asking about the "one, true Mass", there was a concern this was dead in the water. The promising start made by Ralf Siebenbürger as president of Una Voce International was cut to one term because the head of the New Zealand affiliate leaked on of his internal reports and some of Siebenbürger 's enemies seized on this.
In addition, you have many total fantasists at TLMs who are walking propaganda victories for the enemies of the Mass. But most people who go there are normal. Honestly, like the contemplative nuns affected by the dreadful Cor Orans, Francis and his henchmen have picked on a group that can't kick back.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 12, 2024 15:01:22 GMT
I think the problem here was that the policies of both John Paul II and Benedict XVI we're not just about building a bridge towards groups like the SSPX, Campos and other groups, it was also about the traditional Roman rite in its own right, which both popes wanted to preserve as a living entity. Francis has opted to interpret the measures in a very restrictive way. There is certainly an element in the traditional world that has an exaggerated opinion of it's size and strength. For example, I have read in the past successively that one third of Mass going Catholics go to traditional Masses, then it was half, then it was a majority and then, courtesy of an award winning First Things contributer, within twenty years, a majority of French priests would be saying the TLM. In reality, about 5% of French parishes offer the TLM, but their congratulations are more engaged and they are producing more vocations. For information, the SSPX are included in these statistics. There is certainly a "head the ball" element among trades and anyone involved in the trad movement will tell you it abounds in Admiral Jellicoes, by which I mean people who can lose the war in an afternoon. What I mean is painstaking diplomatic work can be blown by one foolhardy statement, usually by people not engaged. For example, the LMSI, when it was still governed by responsible people, put a lot of work into putting the annual Knock pilgrimage on a formal footing (one of the conditions being that it was not an LMSI pilgrimage). When one lady at the Mass in 2002 began approaching the late Mgr Quinn and others asking about the "one, true Mass, there was a concern this was dead in the water. The promising start made by Ralf Siebenbürger as president of Una Voce International was cut to one term because the head of the New Zealand affiliate leaked on of his internal reports and some of Siebenbürger 's enemies seized on this. In addition, you have many total fantasists at TLMs who are walking propaganda victories for the enemies of the Mass. But most people who go there are normal. Honestly, like the contemplative nuns affected by the dreadful Cor Oran's, Francis and his henchmen have picked on a group that can't kick back. I wish more of the normal people who go were on social media and the internet generally, calling out the fanatics. I guess Traditionalists might fall into two camps: 1) Those who prefer the Latin Mass over the vernacular Mass and simply wish to worship in this way. 2) Those who do all or some of these things: hold the Latin Mass to be superior, complain about the "Novus Ordo" (which they never attend but which they seem to somehow know all about, from its rapping priests to its tiny and geriatric congregations), regret Vatican II, want Vatican II revoked or ignored, reject ecumenism, wish to abolish democracy and institute a Catholic confessional state, see the influence of Freemasons everywhere, and...well, I probably don't have to continue. I don't think anyone really has any problem with the first group. But I rarely hear from them, except on this forum. They are a very silent majority. I hear a lot from the second group.
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Jan 12, 2024 16:27:49 GMT
I think a good start is to look at the term traditionalist. Now I have a lot of questions about it, to self declare as a traditionalist is to paint oneself into a corner. For some people the cornerstone of traditionalism is attendance of the traditional Latin Mass (and it's not about Latin - the Mass in the Pro-Cathedral at 11 am on Sundays is the Novus Ordo in Latin; less people are aware of the fact it was possible to have the Roman Rite pre-1965 in Greek, Old Church Slavonic, Hebrew, Hungarian and other languages and the formation of the Ordinariate facilitated it's celebration in English, as was briefly allowed for convert Episcopalian congregations by Pope Pius XI). Now one very prominent figure in the Irish Latin Mass movement will sometimes say in private he has lost count of instances where he met self-declared traditionalists for lunch on Friday where he has noticed them looking very sheepish when he ordered fish and then seen them go for whatever non-meat dish was available. The point that gentleman would make is that his preference for fish is to do with the current regime that Friday is a day of penance under the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which as I have said before, I don't believe is widely appreciated even among well informed Catholics. And, of course, it's traditional.
The next thing is snapshot traditionalism. This is the Catholic equivalent of bible bingo. It takes bits you like and ignores the rest. I think one things that gets me is the amount of trads seeing the revered 13th century through the light of the Counter-Reformation through the light of 19th Century Ultramontanism. There's a failure to appreciate either historical development or the fact that all times are equidistant from the incarnation (I should say that progressivism falls down badly on this score, the way it revers the Second Vatican Council as the year dot, without bothering to read a word the Council said).
Yes, you could have a check list of tradifanstasies: the Catholic monarchy, Conspiracy theorism (especially regarding the Free Masons and Jews), anti-ecumenism (failure to see allies among evangelicals and orthodox, while being mindful of the problems too), dress codes (more so for women than men, but there is quite a difference between southern Europe including France and northern Europe/the Anglosphere. Agreed there is a problem with modesty, but did you ever try to articulate this without sounding ridiculous?), sectarianism (trads only world), sometimes weird economic theories, sometimes Geocentrism, sometimes Young Earth Creationism, Feeneyism - there is quite a lot to start with.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 12, 2024 19:08:53 GMT
I think a good start is to look at the term traditionalist. Now I have a lot of questions about it, to self declare as a traditionalist is to paint oneself into a corner. For some people the cornerstone of traditionalism is attendance of the traditional Latin Mass (and it's not about Latin - the Mass in the Pro-Cathedral at 11 am on Sundays is the Novus Ordo in Latin; less people are aware of the fact it was possible to have the Roman Rite pre-1965 in Greek, Old Church Slavonic, Hebrew, Hungarian and other languages and the formation of the Ordinariate facilitated it's celebration in English, as was briefly allowed for convert Episcopalian congregations by Pope Pius XI). Now one very prominent figure in the Irish Latin Mass movement will sometimes say in private he has lost count of instances where he met self-declared traditionalists for lunch on Friday where he has noticed them looking very sheepish when he ordered fish and then seen them go for whatever non-meat dish was available. The point that gentleman would make is that his preference for fish is to do with the current regime that Friday is a day of penance under the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which as I have said before, I don't believe is widely appreciated even among well informed Catholics. And, of course, it's traditional. The next thing is snapshot traditionalism. This is the Catholic equivalent of bible bingo. It takes bits you like and ignores the rest. I think one things that gets me is the amount of trads seeing the revered 13th century through the light of the Counter-Reformation through the light of 19th Century Ultramontanism. There's a failure to appreciate either historical development or the fact that all times are equidistant from the incarnation (I should say that progressivism falls down badly on this score, the way it revers the Second Vatican Council as the year dot, without bothering to read a word the Council said). Yes, you could have a check list of tradifanstasies: the Catholic monarchy, Conspiracy theorism (especially regarding the Free Masons and Jews), anti-ecumenism (failure to see allies among evangelicals and orthodox, while being mindful of the problems too), dress codes (more so for women than men, but there is quite a difference between southern Europe including France and northern Europe/the Anglosphere. Agreed there is a problem with modesty, but did you ever try to articulate this without sounding ridiculous?), sectarianism (trads only world), sometimes weird economic theories, sometimes Geocentrism, sometimes Young Earth Creationism, Feeneyism - there is quite a lot to start with. Amen to all that. I know there's a tendency to be hardest on those close to us. I agree with Traditionalists on most things. And even the term is questionable, as you say; surely all Catholicism is drenched in tradition. I suppose the aspects of this pontificate that I find most difficult are the actual doctrinal matters. Amoris Laetitia shocked me and it took a long time to find a way of living with it. I would say I was expanding my understanding of orthodoxy. I'm sure many would call it Stockholm Syndrome. Anyway, with such monumental doctrinal matters at stake, it seems perverse many Catholics seem more worried about liturgy which is surely a matter of discipline? I don't get the impression that most Catholics even cared about liturgical questions until quite a long time after Vatican II (and yes, the liberal tendency to treat it as Year One is just as bad as the opposite tendency).
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 12, 2024 23:08:53 GMT
The issue with the liturgy can be stated as follows: (1) Liturgy may be in fact a matter of discipline rather than doctrine, but we are talking about perceptions which can be as important as realities. (2) The idea that the liturgy was unchanging was a major point of Catholic identity before the 60s, and since by definition any practising catholic will come into regular contact with the liturgy, the change encouraged the perception that everything was now open to change. (Recall BTW that even as late as the 50s there were Catholics who maintained that all the churches in communion with Rome should abandon their own liturgies in favour of the Roman Rite in the name of uniformity.) (3) In terms of perception, it can be argued that even though perfectly orthodox in themselves certain attitudes associated with the novus ordo - e.g. the emphasis on communal meal meal rather than sacrifice, the discouragement or suppression of extra-liturgical eucharistic devotions, the insinuation that liturgical developments of the mediaeval and early modern periods were somehow inauthentic - can encourage misunderstandings, as seen e.g. in the large percentage of practising US Catholics who have told surveys they do not believe in the Real Presence. (This is reinforced in the Anglophone world by the fact that the culture's underlying assumptions are deeply influenced by non-liturgical forms of Protestantism, especially in North America.)
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Jan 19, 2024 9:26:11 GMT
I think the point here is lex orandi, lex credendi. That's not to say that isn't done very well at some novus ordo Masses, but it's not the rule.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 24, 2024 0:45:36 GMT
The issue is whether it reflects a change of emphasis (and if so, how far is it beneficial or ill-judged) or a change of doctrine (inadvertently or not).
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 15, 2024 0:41:43 GMT
The current issue of PRIVATE EYE has a satirical item headed "Pope declares devil has won, runs up the white flag". I think this encapsulates Pope Francis's unfortunate indifference to how his statements will be perceived.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Mar 15, 2024 13:06:16 GMT
|
|