Photos of clown Mass:
Mark lectures - don't dare to generalize or make broad generalizations about Novus Ordo Catholics based on a single incident, or relish in it to feel comparatively righteous.
Above anecdote:
Mark generalizes and makes broad generalizations about Traditional Catholics based on one incident and relishes in it to feel comparatively righteous.
DM:
To be more precise:
Photos of clown mass = nothing I nor anybody I know has experienced.
Implications that Paul VI rite Catholics are the enemies of true Catholic Faith = something I have experienced more times than I can count.
To be sure, I have not received such treatment at the hands of all or even most Trads (at least, the ones I know outside of cyberspace). However, in cyberspace, my experience *has* been that the overwhelming majority I encounter take precisely this attitude. I'm sure there are lots of quiet Trads who don't think this. But the noisy ones have generally tended to.
Sorry, DM, but that's my experience. And not just mine, by a long shot. Instead of complaining about the perception that Traddies tend to create by blaming the people who receive the perception (and there are an awful lot of us), I would suggest dealing with the people who *cause* the perception in your ranks.
Gosh, Mark, that's terrible!
It's on a par with...oh, I don't know, characterizing people who disagree with you as the "Rubber Hose Right."
Mark, I respect and admire you greatly, especially for your leadership on the torture issue. But it's pretty unjust to characterize a large and diverse group of people because some of them occasionally act like jerks. I know you wouldn't want someone to cherry-pick this website looking for "proof" that converts are snarky, and though I've encountered a few of the cold and joyless Trad types, I've also encountered people like our new choir director who wants us to do all the music for Holy Week in Latin, because it's part of the rich cultural heritage of the Church that should never have been jettisoned in favor of modern compositions that betray a total lack of appreciation of the norms of sacred music.
And he's not even Catholic. (Yet.)
I sure wish someone had taken a picture of the New Mass=Abortion guy. Sometime tells me that you can probably tell by his demeanor that he has a Rich Inner Life and has never gotten over the fact that, when a child, Father Felt Banner and Sister Macrame Owl wouldn't allow a funeral for his dead rat "Ben."
Red:
I'm not saying all Trads are like this. I am saying that it's a not uncommon problem that Trad treat people outside the bunker as the enemy. As I say, I've never seen a clown mass. But I've seen lots and lots of incidents like this.
And, be fair, I don't characterize "people I disagree with" as the Rubber Hose Right. I characterize people who excuse, justify, champion or otherwise argue for the legitimacy of torture as the Rubber Hose Right.
As an indult trad, I must say I have come across this type of person quite a bit among the Lefebvrists and similar types who denounce indult trads as sell-outs (or - in some cases, present themselves as advocates of the motu proprio while actually preaching thinly disguised sedevacantism). They seem to be turning into an introversionist sect like the Amish (whom some of them actually present as exemplary for their self-segregation from the Wicked World).
You are right re: the Rubber Hose Right; I apologize for the mischaracterization.
But I think that people with traditionalist leanings get awfully tired of being demonized as being cold, selfish, having a "bunker" mentality, and so on. Some of them certainly do; but some of them are simply tired of being constantly chastised for wanting to preserve some tiny element of the past on the grounds that this is divisive, while every innovation imaginable is allowed on the grounds that these foster community.
OK, I have a question. What are those who disagree with you on the an issue supposed to do? If one disagrees on a topic they would
"excuse, justify, champion or otherwise argue for the legitimacy of X"
What form of disagreement is allowed and how does one voice it if we outlaw justification, championing that cause, or otherwise arguing?
It seems like you have taking some of these tactics to make your case against this guy.
Once again, when we care about an issue passionately, as you have with torture and this person has with his belief, we all tend to start to use tactics and words that can offend rather than persuade. Few of us have the talent for writing or speaking that Mark has so we probably will fall into this trap before he does. But if gifted with skills to write and speak, it seems like God would expect more of those who have been given much.
Mark Shea writes : "I'm not saying all Trads are like this. I am saying that it's a not uncommon problem"
Nonsense. For instance I have been a parishioner of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Latin Mass Community here in Denver from within the first two months it came here, and have known well a number of its parishioners since long before then, and not one person I have ever met even comes close to meeting Mr. Shea's description.
Further, I graduated from one of those tiny traditional Catholic colleges and never once met a single student, parent of a student, or faculty member who even comes close to Mr. Shea's description.
While I over the year I have known a few traditionalist types who are stiff bores, for the most part traditionalists are not in the least Jansenistic.
love:
I'm happy you've never encountered nasty Trads. I wish I could say the same. So do a lot of people I know. As I say, I know Trads in real life who are quite wonderful folk and I know it's not *always* (or even usually) the case that Trads are nasty. However, in cyberspace it has tended to be the other way around: nasties out number nice. The way to change that perception is not to moan about how mean people are for feeling offended by all the nasty Trads they meet, but to educate nasty Trads that they have a responsibility to change if they want to be percieved differently.
btw, I came over here via a link to Vox Nova. You know, the bizarre lib blog? I wasn't that long ago I thinking those kiddies over there would be last people I'd want to invite to cocktail party because they have no clue how to have fun, taking themselves way too seriously.
Mr Shae writes : "However, in cyberspace it has tended to be the other way around: nasties out number nice."
The only time I have ran across this the net was over on the Cornell Society. Which weirdly enough was over what constitutes modest dress where a friend of mine, (whose roots in the traditionalist movement go as deep as they can go), was attacked when she cited that modesty is dressing just a little bit more modest than the social norm.
But while one of those who attacked her was a 'traditionalist', I find that prairie muffin tendency to more likely among the Novus Ordo homeschoolers who think that all spelling words and every other aspect of life needs to include a decade of the rosary.
Joe H:
I don't understand your confusion. Not every disagreement is a disagreement about some matter that the Church teaches is intrinsically immoral. Disagreements about the legitimacy of torture are. The only place where there is wiggle room is on the question of *what* is torture, not on the question of whether torture is permissible. The Church has clearly said that it is intrinsically immoral.
When I refer to attempts to "excuse, justify, champion or otherwise argue for the legitimacy" of torture, I refer both to those folks who try to get away with as much as possible (for example, preposterously arguing the waterboarding is not torture), or seek to pretend that it is impossible to ever know *how* to treat prisoners (hint: the Church has "humanely", not "by subjecting them to as much suffering as possible just so long as it's not torture"), or those who simply say, "Screw the Church's teaching! Wars are won by being as brutal as you need to be in order to win, win, WIN!" All of these are things I have encountered in discussion about torture. All of them are foreign to the mind of Christ and I'm not shy about saying so.
It doesn't follow that somebody who disagrees with my views on oriental shrubbery, the dullness of sports, the chances of a Ron Paul presidency, or the music of Pat Matheny are likewise simply flat wrong if we differ. But when it comes to advocacy and excuse-making for torture, if you are trying to justify, excuse, or champion *that* you are dead wrong, not because I say so, but because the Church saw torture is intrinsically immoral. Oriental shrubbery is not.
I love the TLM myself, and also love the Novus Ordo when well done.
But at the same March for Life I saw a group holding up a sign that said "If you belive in Vatican II you are going to Hell."
I had to try to explain to a lot of innocent young girls as best I could -"those are people who don't believe Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI are true popes," etc.
They were absolutely horrified - with the same kind of look on their faces as when they were first told about abortion. No, not to make them the same - I only mean that the HEART KNOWS what is right!
And I thought all we had to fear was that a bunch of whacky leftists would have signs saying "Keep your rosaries..." etc.!
Clearly these were separatists, not merely people who like the TLM.
"...but because the Church saw torture is intrinsically immoral. Oriental shrubbery is not."
Well, unless it's being requested by the Knights who say Ni! in which case it's at least a proximate occasion of sin.
Now, what do we do when a pastor decides to remove the Tabernacle and put it a dark closet with a sign that says "Eucharistic Chapel," and place an Oriental shrubbery in its former location? Respectfully request that he reconsider, in which case we're Trads, or put up with it on the grounds that the Mass is still the Mass?
"The only place where there is wiggle room is on the question of *what* is torture, not on the question of whether torture is permissible. The Church has clearly said that it is intrinsically immoral."
What has the church said "it" is? If one agrees that there is wiggle room on *what* is torture, then there has to be wiggle room on what "it" is that is intrinsically immoral.
Originally, I did not believe that waterboarding a terrorist was torture because I was not convinced it had crossed the line. Over time, with prayer, I have come to agree with you that waterborading is torture. However, I have sympathy for those who believe that saving lives through the use of waterboarding is argument that can be made since the Church does not say *waterboarding* is *it* as far as I know. I have read a lot about Capital punishment and have come to believe that it is wrong, but as far as I know, the Church has yet to come out and said never to capital punishment.
My question is how does one stage an argument if you rule out what you did in this post. The Church should never be afraid of an argument so as to shut it down, but to bring truth with love to the argument to convince. This is what you are calling for in this post about traditionalist. Many of them argue that the Cannon Law of the church backs up their arguments and so should shut up any other argument.
French Proverb that I saw on another site today that I think expresses Mark's views on Traddie's exceptionally well:
“This dog must be mad, when you hit it, it bites.”
I saw the same sign that MR did...still can't figure out what good the woman holding it thought she was doing. Just - not the time or place.
The fact remains that if Mark hadn't decided to use some French wackiness in the ordinary form as a springboard for what's wrong with a segment of people devoted to the extraordinary form, none of this would be going on.
Joe:
The Church has not defined torture. The Church has also not defined "oppressing the poor". That does not mean it is impossible to know what these things are and it does not mean that, failing a papal bull stating "waterboarding is torture" it is impossible to know whether it is. The Church leaves definitions to our common sense as human beings.
My question is how does one stage an argument if you rule out what you did in this post.
An argument about what? What did I rule out? I'm confused by your question.
I'm happy you've never encountered nasty Trads. I wish I could say the same. So do a lot of people I know.
I'll second that. Big time.
I'm surprised no one has yet brought up where this guy's thinking probably came from. Here's my guess:
"he brought up receiving the Eucharist by hand, as if that somehow that had to do with saving unborn children."
True story: Back in 1989, a priest asked, "Mother, what do you think is the worst problem today?" Without any hesitation, Mother Teresa said, "Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand." Although most would expect her to say abortion, she believed "communion in the hand" was the the worst problem in the world today.
That priest was Fr. George Rutler.
all the bickering and arguing over VII Catholics vs. Rad Trads reminds me, as a parent, of my children fighting over which of them loves me more, which really boils down to which of them "deserve" my love more.
I love the idea of receiving in the hand, it always reminds me of a beggar.
I'll second what MR said. I was there, and they weren't in good standing with the Church. They were probably separatists, as he said. I don't think you can in fairness chalk this up to them being supporters of the extraordinary form of the Mass. Since they didn't believe Vatican II was valid, they clearly aren't the run of the mill traditionalist Catholics-this instance is an example of a problem from without the Church, not within. Incidentally, does anyone else not like the phrase traditionalist Catholic? I love tradition, and I would like to experience more of the traditional Mass, but I'd prefer to just call myself Catholic. The whole adjective-Catholic thing kind of weirds me out.
Not to get too sidetracked on the issue of how to receive the Eucharist, but here's an excerpt from God and the World: A Conversation with Peter Seewald (Ignatius, 2000), p.410.
"PS: Communion in the hand, or directly in the mouth?
"JCR: I wouldn't want to be fussy about that. It was done in the early Church. A reverent manner of receiving Communion in the hand is in itself a perfectly reasonable way to receive Communion."
JCR = Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.
I love Mother Theresa, but (assuming she wasn't quoted out of context) I can't understand how receiving Communion as early Christians did is somehow a worse problem than murdering innocent babies in their mothers' wombs. I'd guess our Pope, demonstrably no enemy of tradition, would also have difficulty with that. (All else being equal, I do agree that receiving in the mouth is much more likely to inculcate a sense of respect for the Eucharist. But I have seen plenty of people, and good Catholics, receive very reverently in the hand.)
Communion in the hand is something that happened in the early church. It is MORE traditional than receiving on the tongue. Jesus celebrated the first Mass at the last supper which was a passover meal. No one received on the tongue as far as I know. And there are passages by the early church fathers that refer to receiving the Eucharist in the hand. I can't cite them but I know I heard a homily within the last two years where our good Monsignor quoted from such. Maybe I'll try to look them up.
I am perfectly happy to accept Mother Church's wisdom on this matter and believe that both ways of receiving can be done with reverence.
It is really silly to get caught up in these things. Shame on us.
I do not believe the story about Mother Teresa.
And my three oldest kids attended the march and came home horrified at those separatists signs. It really cut into the sense of unity they were feeling in fighting the evil of abortion. Very inappropriate and uncharitable to fellow pro-lifers.
I have to agree that on-line trads can be a bit 'off' sometimes. In my observation the conversation is always dominated by young men who seem to have way too much time on their hands.
I read Fisheaters sometimes and it always makes me feel glad that I converted from Roman Catholicism to Orthodoxy. The legalism is, IMHO, almost soul-destroying (at least for me). I popped over there a few days ago and they were debating whether it was okay to hope that the deceased Patriarch of Athens was in heaven. Some guy suggested that it was a sin to hope that someone outside of the RCC was in heaven. Another guy said that it was possible that the Patriarch was in heaven if, on his deathbed, he accepted papal infallibility.
They also spend a lot of time talking about Jews. Some of them are rabid anti-semites, IMHO.
Then there's the endless discussions about Fatima and whether Russia was properly consecrated.
Overall, on-line 'trad-ism' isn't very attractive. It's dominated by conspiracy theorists who obsess about Jews and don't have any qualms about presuming to know the state of someone else's soul.
Of course we Orthodox have our share of loonies. What both groups of crazies have in common is that they are mostly comprised of alienated young men who would be much nicer to be around if they met some nice girl who could calm them down.
Amen, Faith!
To use that venue to advance ANYTHING except the right to life is unjust. I have also seen signs trying to link War--all war--with abortion (as in--Stop War, stop Abortion, Stop Homelessness, etc.), and several years ago, the "Gays for Life" --huge banner with pink triangle, etc. It's just not right!
I just wandered through Mark Shea's blog, and was rather surprised by the hand wringing over traditionalists.
It appears that Mr. Shea's recent Chronicles article is an ongoing concern in his life, whereas, as a traditionalist, I have long since learned to simply live with my second class citizenship.
When on occasion my wife and I and the children attend the local Novus Ordo mass versus driving to the personal parish, I simply close my eyes during mass and receive communion kneeling as I am allowed to do.
Our local parish liturgist and choir director is a nice enough gal, and quite delightful at the parish dances, but her taste in music is absolutely dreadful beyond syrupy silliness, but on the other hand it seems to fit the N.O. mass rather well. And so it goes with the other aspects of the mass.
And if I can live with that, then I'm sure Mr. Shea can suffer through the glory and the beauty of the Extraordinary Rite.
But seriously. The concept that there are all these vitriolic, in your face, traditionists out there raising havoc and thereby making themselves unwanted guests at the next party is just a bit much.
"Gays for Life"
Is it just me, or does it strike others as rather queer that a disorder which by its nature is contrary to the natural order of propagation would be for life?
Well, for one thing, some gays are concerned that a prenatal test will be discovered to determine whether a child will have a greater inclination to homosexuality, and that parents will use that as a reason to abort. I'm actually surprised that there aren't more gays who are pro-life for this very reason.
Also, it's not the "disorder" that's for life. It's the people who suffer from that objective disorder that are. It's worth separating the two -- people are, after all, fairly complex in their beliefs and motives, and I doubt that the Gays for Life think of their own sexual habits as being on the same moral plane as what they rightly identify as murder.
Mark:
I can name several parishes withing ten miles of my home that have, at some point in the past three years done the following:
Liturgical dancing
Cinnamon sugar on the hosts
Female pronouns for God in the Canon
et cetera. Liturgical abuse - of an egregious (even invalidating) sort - is hardly an uncommon phenomenon. If I don't experience it personally, it is because I attend the traditional Mass exclusively.
And as for your "second class Catholic" complaint, I can only say this: The people who will treat Novus Ordinarians as second-class Catholics are strangers on the internet who have no effect on your life. The people who will treat Traditionalists as second-class Catholics are people who have (and, in many dioceses, gleefully exercise) the power to ruin their devotional lives and harass them in every way imaginable.
So the lady with the sign was not successful in what she meant to articulate, whatever the heck that was. The commenter "Geepers" above probably hit on what she was trying to get at...poor woman, she's obviously confused and befuddled. Maybe a lunatic, even, who the heck knows. In either case, don't we owe her some charity? And what's more, the way Mark and folks here are reacting to ONE PERSON as if she represents every Catholic who loves the TLM as if they are ALL that way...well, it is nothing better than the MSM taking Guiliani as a typical American Catholic, or for that matter, the general Catholic-bashing that is so prevalent in the media and in society. I'm disappointed in you, Mark. You need to apologize, my brother.
A lot of milque-toast, watered-down, social justice Gospel stuff, I've seen. A lot of what I would call "GIRM-skirting", I've seen a ton of that.
I've done a lot of parish hopping over the years, and have yet to see a Cinnabons approach to the Holy Eucharist, DM. I'm curious what the rest of the story is.
Mark,
Maybe replacing "Traditionalists" and "Trads" with "Radtrads" (since you use that tag anyhow) would help reduce or eliminate the charge of overgeneralization?
I would generally fall under the "traditionalist" label, but I and most other traditional minded Catholics certainly find these bitter anti-Vatican II wackos as unpleasant as you do.
Maybe the reason that Mark only notices the bitter radtrads is because all the others he claims he never runs into don't even self-identify as traditionalists when they walk into a room since they consider themselves to be Catholic first. I thought one of the points of Summorum Pontificum was that traditionalists would no longer be treated like red-headed stepchildren by their bishops and other Catholics.
I found this awesome quote via the Whapsters blog:
"We desire that this practice... of using distinctive names by which Catholics are marked off from other Catholics, should cease; such names must be avoided... [they] are neither true nor just... they lead to great disturbance and confuse the Catholic body."
- Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum
I've never found saying "you're an a**h*le" to be an effective evangelization technique, whether in the giving or the receiving.
"I do not believe the story about Mother Teresa."
Do you have some reason you don't believe Fr. George Rutler's claim that he asked her this question and she gave this answer in an interview he did with her?
Fr. Rutler, by the way, is a secular priest in the Archdiocese of NY, presently pastor of a parish in Manhattan. Right under the Cardinal Archbishop's nose, so to speak. If you have some reason to believe Fr. Rutler is going about calumniating Mother Theresa, I'd fire off a letter to the Cardinal Archbishop of NY.
Unless, of course, you just don't believe it because it'd make you feel bad if it were true or something.
Forget the term "Trad" or "Radtrad"
just refer to me as an "Extrodinary Catholic".
http://www.catholicnews.com/data...cns/
0800606.htm
Not everyone thinks communion in the hand is the way to go. Just sayin'.
What always got me was what Christ told MM, even though she was the first person ever to see the Resurrected Lord, thereby giving us the idea that this was one special lady. He told her: "don't touch me!".
And a little while later, He tells Thomas...touch me. There's a difference.
Make that:
Forget the term "Trad" or "Radtrad"
just refer to me as an "Extraordinary Catholic".
Why can't you get "spell check" haloscan?
The story about Mother Teresa true or no (or true) wouldn't bother me a bit.
My Tuba teacher taught great wisdom once when he spake:
"Bill ... Opinions are like A**h*les everybody's got one."
It was something that troubled Blessed (and Hopefully Saint soon!) Teresa and she spoke her mind. No harm no foul there. And I might agree with her on any given Tuesday.
There's probably lots of things we (I) can cherry pick out of the Lives of the Saints and say "aha!! gotcha sucka!" ...But that's just my own pitiful smallness of heart speaking - not befitting a man after Jesus.
Another sorrowful klutz...
Again, Mark showing that he has not only BDS, but also TDS (Trad Derangement Syndrome).
While certainly it is fine (if odd) to point out that there are a few cranks saying silly things like the example in Mark's post, it is entirely another matter to paint with the broad brush Mark uses when he goes on to complain of a "widespread inability of Traditionalists" to get out of a bunker mentality. Proof, please (as someone I know might say), beyond a freakish example.
It is doing the same thing to traditional folks that he claims they do when they point to a liturgical abuse and supposedly conclude that all NO liturgies are whacked out.
Again, "Traditionalists" (no modifier) "have to figure out how to be fully Catholic." Teach us, O Master. Really, again this is an example of exactly what Mark complains of trads doing to him: they supposedly accuse him of being a second-class Catholic. Well, here is Mark accusing, not some, not a few, but all trads of not being fully Catholic.
And ironically (indeed, I wonder now if this posting is not intended as a parody) Mark while bashing trads accuses them of fomenting dissension and disunity, as if what Mark is doing is calculated to produce peace and unity.
Physician, heal thyself.
+J.M.J+
>>>Maybe replacing "Traditionalists" and "Trads" with "Radtrads" (since you use that tag anyhow) would help reduce or eliminate the charge of overgeneralization?
Not sure that would work. Practically every time he's used the term "radtrad" here before, some traditionalist inevitably posts something to this effect: "I'm offended by your use of the word "radtrad." I love the Pope and attend the Latin Mass approved by my bishop and don't like you calling me a radtrad!"
To which Mark then must reply that they are not in fact "radtrads" if they do all that. It's happened here many, many times before over the years.
In Jesu et Maria,
I agree with "love the girls" who says "But seriously. The concept that there are all these vitriolic, in your face, traditionists out there raising havoc and thereby making themselves unwanted guests at the next party is just a bit much." Don't you think too that now that the Pope has called for more TLMs that there will be even less of the in-your-face paranoid types. I think his idea to bring the TLM back into the mainstream will eventually cause these radical expressions to dissappear altogether.
Ha! I saw that wacko sign too!
But let's be logical: if you were a loony of that sort, where would you go to get maximum exposure for your message? The March for Life, obviously. And it worked. Here we are, discussing the stupid sign on what is probably the largest Catholic blog. Now, given the nearly irresistible temptation the March poses for loonies in the Church and/or on the Right, I count it a small miracle that I've seen an average of maybe one such sign a year there. In brief: there probably aren't as many people like that sign-holder as we're implying by the attention we're giving him.
Secretary for the Congregation for Divine Worship is apparently possessed by Mother Teresa.
http://www.cwnews.com/news/views...fm?
recnum=56354
Rosemarie,
You're right, I've noticed that too. You just can't please EVERYONE. But maybe making a distinction between "trad" and "radtrad" would help in at least SOME cases.
21 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
