AmericanPapist Comments
I was hoping you'd attended. (I couldn't, but did get to the daily Mass that he celebrated at CU. Thanks for the decent notes!)
Actually, America has the entire text of another talk he gave on the same topic at BC in April available free, and the article, based on these talks that you linked to, is also free (one has to register with an email address. It's not subscriber only).
It's interesting that so many of the points that he brought up as being problematic of the reformed Roman Rite: length, transcendence, engaging the senses, etc. are simply not issues with the Eastern rites.
Thom,
He sounds like a liturgical progressive to me and his comments regarding Summorum Pontificum woefully inadequate. You sound like you were much too easy on him. I once asked a bishop in public when he was rapsodizing about the glories of the Novus Ordo, "why then, bishop,has Sunday Mass attendance tanked if it is so wonderful?" He was angry and would not answer.
In terms of Summorum Pontificum, it is not primiarly about reconciling
the Lefebvrites, that's a standard
liberal canard. I am not remotely close to one, I have no animus towards the Novus Ordo celebrated in accordance with the books, but like, Benedict, believe the liberating of the TLM will make the Novus Ordo that much better and provide a bridge between the two Rites. Tom
TJM,
If you think that Mass attendance has "tanked" because of Novus Ordo you are naive. Church attendance has declined generally in this country, and actually has declined somewhat less among Catholics. I despise abuses of any rite and applaud the recent relaxation of rules pertaining to the Tridentene Mass, but the notion that the introduction of the New Mass as such was a significant contributer to Mass attendance decline is unfounded.
Unfounded? As in "no evidence whatsoever"? Quite a few former Catholics left the faith in confusion after the rite was changed and replaced with one novelty after another during the 1970's and 80's all while being brow beaten about how wrong the Church was "pre-Vatican II" and how sure the reigning liturgists and faddish theologians were of their new 'developed' teachings.
As one told me "if the Church admits to being wrong on so fundamental an issue then why should I listen to it on other peripheral issues?" Now certainly I told him the Church per se didn't claim to be in error, that that was how certain sectors SOLD their 'new and improved' version of "the spirit of Vatican II' but such nice nuances and distinctions were lost on the poor soul.
So I'd say "unfounded" is not quite the word to use. Impolite, impolitic, unpopular, indiscrete, ... those terms seem more descriptive of the situation of stating the obvious: Mass attendence declined with Catholic obedience to the prayer life and moral life of the Church. One can't mandate sweeping changes - and brow beat people with crazy liturgies for years and not expect a falling away to occur.
The Novus Ordo wasn't the only cause but it was a factor. Widespread dissent, a decline in holiness and leadership are others.
Those groups who were faithful to the Magisterium, followed THE LETTER of Vatican II, and sought holiness rather than "relevance" according to society's criteria have higher mass attendence, more vocations, and more success evangelizing the culture. And that's not my assertion, that's proven fact.
As proof I give you the difference between the growing religious orders and congregations vs. the 'liberal' groups that are literally dying.
The difference between dioceses that are falling apart vs. the ones with bursting seminaries and a vibrant clergy.
The difference between select conservative Catholic charities and media outlets vs. their liberal/dissenting counterparts. For example, there is no liberal "EWTN" - unless you claim the NYT.
Call to Action vs Call to Holiness.
Voice of the (un)faithful vs. the Catholic homeschooler networks.
The Church's pew warmers by and large react positively to orthodoxy preached unapologetically and forthrightly. The truth is "the good news"; one need not pull punches with the Church's moral doctrine, especially the 'hard doctrines' on sexual morals. The Pope (JP2) didn't and the youth flocked to hear him.
I think Thomas's notes show the meaningful dialogue we can acheive when we have intelligent thinkers from different viewpoints providing commentary and not the game we so often see played of of conservatives setting up some Clown Mass aficionado as the spokesman for liturgical renewal or liberals seeing the conservative point of view only promulagated by a raving anti-Semite.
The meaningful dialogue has to start with the Letter of Vatican II, and the Pope's promulgation of the N.O. and the actual rubrics called for.
Only if one starts from what is written - can we judge whether it has been tried and found wanting or simply not tried.
I think most of the craziness was liturgists NOT applying the official rubrics but pushing the envelope and making things up as they went *(Clown masses DID HAPPEN. So did dancing masses, and other silly stuff besides).
Had they all just been docile and patient to listen to the Pope, watch how HE celebrated the new rite, and then followed suit with care and delicacy we'd all have been better off.
As it is, the thriving groups today DO mostly celebrate Mass in the N.O. rite and do so reverently, with sober seriousness and proper decorum. And the fruits are apparent in faith, hope, and love - new vocations, new movements, new young families flocking to those groups.
I'm not a Tridentine rite Catholic. I love the Novus Ordo celebrated properly. If we start with that - what is written and master it, then we can have all the dialogues we want on how to tweak it for this or that specific region, culture, and sensibility.
Church attendance below 10 % in Belgium...
You're optimistic, papist !
It's well below 5 %, and I think you can still divide by 10 to obtain the level of young church attendance.
Progressism has nearly destroyed us, and is still doing. And we have fewer healthy remains that elsewhere. (in particular, we have a officious "parliament" of laity, C.I.L. in French, an alter ego in Dutch, who favours elimination of young innocents in utero babies, priestesses, and antigodmatism... Recently Rome has alerted the bishops on that, the bishops have warned the C.I.L., who responded : we don't want to cut bridges with episcopate... but we want to keep our liberty of responsable discernement... Cool...)
Pray for us.
As for Cardinal Danneels, I don't think it's catholic to judge his actions publicly. We could have had a better primate, but also far a worse. I will resign in few months and the succession will be a great battle.
Oops ! I meant : HE will resign. I'm sure, alas, that His Eminence did much thing to ensure realization of his goods ideas on liturgy... In Brussels as in elsewhere in Belgium if you visit parishes you'll see a lot a fancy, you'll find the liturgical abuse you prefer, but nowhere incense.
In parishes roman documents are never read, nearly never heard off, except in a officious diocesan paper which explains how not to take them too seriously...
We're still in a 70' mood here, with less enthusiasm. Pray and stay faithful to Christ and His Church.
Having lived with the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostum and St. Basil in the "old country" for the last 4 years, I would like to point out to his eminence that the REAL Eastern-Rite liturgical virtue is not a feast for the senses (although it is that), or involvement of the faithful, or anything like that, but fidelity to the tradition. Fidelity. To the Tradition. To say with St. Paul, "What I have received, I pass on to you." Without disparaging the validity or liceity of the ordinary form of the Latin Rite, it's chief defect is that is was--to a large extent--invented. The very fact of its invention inspired invention in its celebration.
Interesting insight, Oliver. It'll be interesting to see if the Pope accepts his resignation immediately or allows the Cardinal to continue to serve for an extra year or two. I'm sure more than a few in the States will be watching that closely given that one of our supposedly-progressive princes reaches retirement age in less than 3 1/2 years.
Wow, Scott. And your point is?
Are you really studying for the priesthood? I can only say, wow, are we taking jerks now?
Commenting by HaloScan
