Combox for:
Yet More "Anti-Apologetics" Rhetoric: This Time From a "Traditionalist" ("Athanasius")
[2 May 2008]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...toric-
this.html
"Athanasius" made this wonderful comment on 11-27-05:
"If he [Pope John Paul II] is canonized, I will not consider the Canonization valid.
Also, I will never pray to John Paul II."
http://
athanasiuscm.blogspot.com...312331834188924
I have added some material, including the discovery of this person's real name -- almost by accident, as it turned out -- since the original posting, as of 2:55 PM 5-2-08.
This individual on the one hand asserts that bishops and priests ought to be doing apologetics - because they have the credentials and authority to do is in compliance with Church teaching - and yet on the other hand he refuses to recognize their authority or credentials because he considers most of them modernist.
In this regard, he is not entirely wrong. Many of the priests and bishops are the last people who ought to be doing any apologetics; they are themselves at least material heretics.
The point is that, whatever his intentions (which I cannot judge), the ultimate outcome is that he does not have any authority to submit to other than himself.
I would also add - in case he may perchance read this - that in making the statements he has about John Paul II, he is tiptoeing right up to, if not crossing, the line of judging the man's soul to be damned - a grievous sin of which he must repent immediately.
On a side note, unless I am mistaken, the patron saint of apologists - Justin Martyr - was not even ordained. 
St. Francis wasn't ordained, either, as I recall. Nor were St. Teresa of Avila, St. Therese, and St. Catherine.
In another paper, Ryan asks:
All of the sudden, we are told by the directory of Ecumenism, by John Paul II in Ut unum sint, and by almost daily and endless pronouncements on Ecumenism that we must "dialog". Yet when we come to 40 years of dialog we see no fruits akin to those things our Blessed Lord called for. Where are the conversions? Where are the souls flocking to the true religion?
Has he not heard of all the thousands of conversions as a result of the current apologetics revival? I have seen scores of people myself, if not hundreds by now, who tell me that my writing has helped them convert or come back to the Church. I work with a ministry (Coming Home Network) that deals with a constant stream of converts. How many conversions has Ryan seen that come about because of his writing, if his method is so supposedly superior to ours, in terms of persuading people of the One True Faith?
Ecumenical dialog, apart from being fruitless and a waste of time (otherwise name me one convert who became Catholic because of "dialog") . . .
Me. As a direct result of two cradle Catholics who took Vatican II seriously, and reached out to a Protestant in terms that I could understand, I became a Catholic. It was a direct result precisely because of ecumenical dialogues that I held in my own home. I began them as a Protestant and became a Catholic within a year. Several in my circle of friends also converted: a few of them as a result of this same discussion group. Many conversions have occurred because of dialogues on the Internet, including some where people read my own writings.
http://athanasiuscm.blogspot.com...-
ecumenism.html
Actually, St. Francis was ordained to the diaconate.
I am a product of your apologetics, Dave. After a search for a church to join left me with no place to go due to the current embrace of liberal social politics by almost all mainstream church bodies, I decided to give Catholicism one chance. I was familiar with JP Holding's site and recalled that it linked to several pro and several anti-Catholic sites, and so I decide to randomly select a site from the list to be the Catholic spokes...er...site. I picked yours! Your site and a read through of The Catholic Verses just about did it for me.
Praise God for His graces and guidance, Shane! Welcome!
I've long noted, in any event, how Catholic "traditionalists" are similar in their mentality to both Catholic liberals and Protestants. The fact that they often line up with enemies of the Church in their opinions of fellow Catholics ought to give them pause, but of course it does not, unless and until they wake up and come out of the private judgment-obsessed dreamland that they occupy.
Please do not lump all Traditionalists together. However the word “Traditionalist” is too vague anyway and many people will lay claim to the title (I sometimes do but with caution because it’s not explicit enough). I know of many traditionalists who are not radical or extreme yet have valid concerns over the new Mass and the ambiguity that is in Vatican II. I am also not commenting on Ryan’s “Traditionalist” stance but would like to just take some time to explain that there are people out there with real and valid concerns over these issues.
For example, someone with a valid and real concern over the offertory prayer in the Novus Ordo compared to the Traditional Latin Mass (keep in mind this is only an example).
Here is the Novus Ordo:
P: Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.
R. Blessed be God for ever.
P: By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ, who humbled himself to share in our humanity.
Okay now here is the TLM:
P: Receive, O Holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Thine unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, for my countless sins, trespasses, and omissions; likewise for all here present, and for all faithful Christians, whether living or dead, that it may avail both me and them to salvation, unto life everlasting. Amen.
P: O God, Who in creating man didst exalt his nature very wonderfully and yet more wonderfully didst establish it anew: by the mystery signified in the mingling of this water and wine, grant us to have part in the Godhead of Him Who hath vouchsafed to share our manhood, Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God; world without end. Amen.
Okay now someone who thinks that the TLM is superior to the Novus Ordo (like me) and has valid concerns will have level-headed and essentially non-extremist approach to this.
Notice the more explicit reasons for offering the sacrifice, even mentioning the dead which were cut out of the New Mass prayer, and the more explicit mentioning that the offering is for salvation.
As anyone can see the TLM prayer is fuller and conveys Catholic doctrine and thought better. That is the problem that is throughout the New Mass compared to the old.
Keep in mind this is just a snippet example and many more examples like this can be produced (just examine a si
I guess that was too large?
Continued:
Keep in mind this is just a snippet example and many more examples like this can be produced (just examine a side by side comparison). There are also other aspects like symbolisms, signs, structures, and forms that can be compared as well. However I will not get into that because that is not the point. What I am merely trying to show is that people have real concerns over things like Vatican II or the New Mass. We simply see that there is an obvious problem with say the prayers of the New Mass (not counting that it has a large amount of options and has adopted inferior forms like the priest facing the people or standing for communion) and that the small t traditions – namely that of organically developing the Mass instead of fabricating a new one and watering down the prayers is a problem.
The Eastern rites and schismatic sects as well as the Latin rite have organically and slowly developed the liturgy with rich prayers and symbolisms that help emphasizes doctrine and reverence (the small “t” traditions). With the New Mass you have a break from the organic development with a fabrication of a whole new liturgy with watered down prayers and a gigantic amount of optional prayers as well as the other things mentioned.
Again I would like to stress that I am not trying to give a full argument here about how the Novus Ordo is inferior and is not a true development etc. I am just trying to show what “real Traditionalists” (for lack of a better term) would try to communicate. Namely that there are real problems here instead of throwing around insults and arguments with no substance to them. This does not mean someone is less Catholic for attending a New Mass, or that it is invalid, or that reverence cannot be achieved at a New Mass (regardless of what Ryan says – I really don’t agree with him 100% of the time) or that “real Traditionalists” are quasi-schematics.
There are many more valid and real concerns that some people simply like to ignore or explain away or perhaps have just not looked into yet.
While some parts of Ryan’s post would probably need more context (like for example perhaps he is talking about large organization or network of Catholic apologetics instead of individuals like Chesterton) his thoughts on small t helping large T Traditions are spot on but is not the figurehead speak for individuals who are genuinely concerned with the reforms of the past 40 plus years and I would like to ask that everyone please do not make generalizations because a few others are extreme. I would still admit though that the word “Traditionalist” is too vague and that is probably one of the problems when trying to communicate these things. I have seen everyone from schismatics to practicing Catholics who attend Novus Ordo Mass use this term for themselves.
Alexander,
Actually the Offertory is one of the reasons I believe the Pauline rite of Mass to be in at least some ways superior to the TLM.
The Pian (TLM) Offertory makes it sound a heck of a lot like what is being sacrificed is a peace of wheat. Now this is not what is intended, of course. In fact, there are perfectly valid reasons why the prayer can says what it does then, before the Consecration, with some significant meaning. We do indeed offer the host to God in a similar sense to how the Israelites offered the first fruits. Yet it is not for our sins that we do this, and as you have alluded to, we are talking about a prayer that everyday lay people are exposed to, most of them without theological training. The fact is it is not the spotless host which the priest offers to the Father for his and our many sins - it is the body of Christ.
The Pauline canon makes it much more explicit that what is being offered is the body of Christ, especially when the 4th Eucharistic prayer is used.
The offering of the wine is certainly better in the TLM, and makes much more clear what is going on, or at least it does to my trained ears. I'm not sure if your everyday Catholic is going to understand just what that prayer is saying, but then again, if one wanted to make it plain enough for everybody, it would probably be quite a lengthy prayer. One cannot distill Athanasian soteriology down quite that much.
Alexander,
I much like you believe as well that in many aspects the Novus Ordo opens its self up to abuse. However saying that one rite is superior to another should not sit well with anyone that professes the faith.
You may however say that one is obviesly more beautiful than the other. Which I believe it is.
We must remember however that when the Church decreed that the Mass be said in the vernacular that did not only mean a translation but also in language of the people so they may be better understand that takes place in the Mass.
Ryan Grant said: "If he [Pope John Paul II] is canonized, I will not consider the Canonization valid.
Also, I will never pray to John Paul II."
There is no obligation that a Catholic have a devotion to every canonised saint. However, there is an obligation that all Catholics accept and submit to the authority of Peter when he pronounces ex cathedra that a person is in heaven and is worthy of veneration. For a Catholic to refuse to accept the validity of a formal canonisation betrays a "Protestant" mentality of private judgment. God has not given us permission to personal refuse to accept the validity of a canonisation.
Shane said: The Pian (TLM) Offertory makes it sound a heck of a lot like what is being sacrificed is a peace of wheat.
How so? The Pian Offertory doesn't say anything about "wheat" or "bread." It just refer to "this spotless host," that is, "this spotless sacrifice." "Host" does not mean "a round wafer that is used during Mass," it means "sacrifice" or "victim." In the Pian Offertory, the priest prays that God will accept the sacrifice of Christ, the spotless victim, the spotless host.
We do indeed offer the host to God in a similar sense to how the Israelites offered the first fruits. Yet it is not for our sins that we do this,
On the contrary, it is precisely for our sins that we offer the spotless host at the hands of the priest.
The fact is it is not the spotless host which the priest offers to the Father for his and our many sins - it is the body of Christ.
You may as well have said, "It is not the body of Christ which the priests offers to the Father, it is the spotless host." Both are just as true (meaning both statements are false) and both make just as much sense (meaning they don't make any sense at all).
Since the priest in the Pian Offertory has referred to the bread as "spotless host" (unblemished sacrifice) even prior to the consecration, even prior to the sacrifice, that means the prayer is saying the bread will be offerred not as bread, but as Jesus, the spotless victim.
In comparison, the Pauline Offertory refers to "this bread" that will become for us "the bread of life." That means the bread will be offered not as bread, but as Jesus, the bread of life. You have said the Pian Offertory makes it sound like it is bread that is being sacrificed, but if your statement has validity, then by the same token the Pauline Offertory makes it sound like it is bread that is being sacrificed -- in both cases the transubstantiation to be effected is implied, not stated outright. It is only because we know that "spotless host" means "Jesus" and "bread of life" means "Jesus" that both Pian Offertory and Pauline Offertory are able to convey the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation and Eucharistic sacrifice. The Pian Offertory, however, emphasises the sacrificial aspect and states the reason for the sacrificial offe
The Pian Offertory, however, emphasises the sacrificial aspect and states the reason for the sacrificial offering, whereas the Pauline Offertory, greatly truncated and very brief, does not mention any of that and is therefore greatly impoverished. All in all, the traditional offertory prayers are liturgically, didactically, theologically, and poetically superior to the revised offertory prayers. But both Pian and Pauline are fully orthodox and Catholic, for it is impossible for the Roman Church to lose the Apostolic Tradition and to impose a liturgy on the Church that is not Catholic.
That last point Giovanni is absolutely irrefutable.
My own experience of this; about 8 months ago I started reading the websites and the "Traditionalist' stuff. I have always loved church music-and I am old just old enough to remember the music of the Latin mass.
The hymns at my local church are atrocious. One line 'Thy faithfullness to clouds' utterly banal.
It started with a purely aesthetic interest.
Then what happened? The 'pro multus' debate. That really got me worried.
Then I sat all night in absolute despair-I paraphrased Othello's lament in my mind. Othello says after he has killed Desdemona;' wife, what wife? I have no wife'. I said to myself;'church, what church?, I have no church, oh insupportable!'
So I was 'deeply troubled '(I wrote to a friend)for about 2 months. Then I thought 'I must put it in abeyance'. and tried not to think about it.
About this time I met John who was going down this same road. A real zealout. He started sending document after document to my inbox. And I noticed they were getting crazier and crazier, and I didn't like the ridiculing of the Church ecclesiastics which I though wasn't Christian. Especially a picture of the present pope which made him look evil.
Bear with me-then I went to Sunday mass(this I feel was the Holy Spitit intervening). It was to do to with the Tabernacle. It was to the side, not in a central position.(a major complaint from that camp) It was obvious to me that the priest and people were good and reverent, and it was the priest walking humbly to the tabernacle to get the hosts that I thought-'does it matter if the tabenacle is in a central position?' I know myself that art as well as conserving must at time be innovative. I looked around the church. There were the stations of the cross, there were the statues of the saints, nothing's changed.
Then it lifted I think-the burden of this.
I better say here that during all this this website, has helped me more than I can say.
But anyway I am now Pro-vatican 2.
One last thing; John (who still believes I am one of them-that's the terrible thing about these extremists-THEY DON'T LISTEN') sent me a video recording of the latin mass. And I listened (this is really all I wanted at the beginning), and maybe I was wrong but I felt the priest was slightly luxuriating in the latin, relishing the words a little too much.
Also, Something JP2 wrote Levbere saying that The Church's Tradition is dynamic.
And I go to a multi-ethnic, multi national mass. tat beautiful democratic feeeling at the Alleluia. And I was honest with myself had to admit that the music to the mass is beautiful, sung with utter reverence. I had deliberatey knocked that out of my mind.
And something from Chesterton that the Chuch can actually die but it rises again ('because it knows it's way out of the grave')
I think the period after Vatican 2 the church did die. But it has risen alive again.
You know the Trads allways use not ol
Jordanes,
I appreciate your comments, but I do disagree. I also recognize that I did not make my post as clear as I could have.
My point is that in the Pian offering, it may appear to the average Mass-goer that what is being offered to the Father is the unconsecrated host. This is because it asks the Father, in the present tense, to accept the host - which has at that point not been consecrated. It doesn't say anything about what the host will become, nor does it look to the future in any way. In fact, it seems to finish up the thought by the declaration Amen. In the context of Liturgical prayer, the current thought is finished with the Amen.
Throughout the Pian canon, each Amen finishes up a main thought - a particular petition. In the Pauline rite, we have the Great Amen, which finishes up the entire prayer of the Eucharistic Sacrifice.
I am not charging the Pian rite with theological error. As I said, there are perfectly orthodox ways in which the Offertory is intended and can be understood. The problem is that the vast majority of Catholics - even good, devout, and Baltimore Catechism educated ones - do not posess the theological training or thought to recognize this.
The main meat of the Eucharistic prayer(s) - in both the Pian and Pauline rite - certainly make it clear that the body of Christ is being offered to the Father for our sins. However, in the Pian rite this additional concept that in some way the unconsecrated host is being offered for this purpose could easily be understood.
Whereas you say that the Pauline Offertory is truncated, I see it as a removal of this potential pitfall. In the Pauline rite, the bread and wine - the work of human, rather than Divine hands - is offered to God as just that, just as the Levites offered the first fruits. Then, once the consecration has taken place, the prayers offer to the Father the Lamb of God. It is neat and clean. It is not as beautiful, but it does not posses the possibility of this misunderstanding.
There is much about the Pian rite that I prefer, from the beautiful language to the orientation of the celebrant - though this is possible in the Pauline rite - to the prayers at the foot of the altar. However, this is one area in which I believe the Pauline rite has a decided advantage.
they always use uncharitable lanuage-'avoid heretics at all costs'. I was never comfortable with-'there is no salvation outside the church' goes against God's mercy. They see all this as watering down, rt in my Zealous friends words-'kow-towing to the protestants' but it's not, it's reaching-out in a Christ-like fashion.
The Chruch's teaching (if they would read the relevant Vatican documents) has never been more clearer in its history, the dogmas remain unchanged THERE'S NOTHING WRONG. But I worry for them because they losing their catholic character.
So much I could say about it.
They think (an author I love) Evelyn Waugh Would be on their side. But I am sure he wouldn 't. For one thing he was very obedient. Yes, he lamented the chages but he said in his diary they were 'superficial changes.' It's that terrible disobedience which.. so stubborn.
At mass the other Sunday I looked over at my zealous friend ( if this 'modern' church is so heretical why do they still go to their services?) and therer he was beaming away. The Nigerian priest was exhorting us to read our Bibles more (pure vatican2) and he went into the congregation to ask some of us what our favourite Bible passage was. I could see John itching to tell what his was.
Thank God with me it was only a passing phase.
Pray for John.
You see the Traditionalist see the decline in moral standards everywhere and the dumbing down everywhere, a culture of the lowest common denominator and links it in his mind with the changes of Vatican2, that was when the decline started in the swinging sixties, but that's a superficial amalysis. It's much more complicated than that. More to do with social Darwinism, and scientific something the apotheosis of scientific knowledge,
And it's a particular type; donnish, erudite (but not quite), fastidious, very English (parochial in that sense), slightly detached.
Finally, I do with there was more silence at mass. I do wish there more latin, more gregorian chant.
I do hope that Bishops are very open to the latin mass if the people want it.
I asked my parish priest and he dismissed me.
Enough
James,
I don't know if you are aware or not or need this information, but the pro multis thing is a red-herring. Many eastern Catholic Liturgies have never even had this line in the consecration. If it had anything to do with validity, then the Divine Liturgies of many of the Eastern Catholic Churches would not have ever been valid.
As a side note, I would agree with some of what you said. I think that the vernacular is very important to the revitilization of the Church. I know that I would not be Catholic if not for the vernacular languge. Of course, God brings people to His truth and could do so if Latin was still required, but it seems to me that one of the ways He did this with me was permitting me to live in a time where the obstacle of a foreign language in worship was not present. He seems to have done the same for Dr. Hahn, as another example.
We must remember that Latin was originally introduced because it was the vernacular. Of course there is some benefit to having a set apart, sacred language, as those opposed to the vernacular assert. However, there is also value to hearing the prayers of the Mass in one's own language. "Faith comes through hearing," as St. Paul said. This segues into a greater point:
The Church has, throughout Her history, always adapted to the cultural changes. She has not changed, but She has adapted insofar as She could without compromising Her doctrine or identity. God intended this of Her. The Church has followed the Pauline principle of being all things to all people so as by all means to save some. She is the universal Church, after all!
I am of the belief that the Second Vatican Council was inspired by the Holy Spirit as the antidote to those changes in the culture which would arise in the late 1960 and beyond. I believe that had it not been for the Council, things may have eventually gotten much worse for the Church than they have now. Unfortunately, the Council was implemented badly, and this delayed the positive effects, but I believe that the positives we are seeing in the Church today are those positive effects finally beginning to be made manifest.
It must be remembered that in the 50 years between 1920 and 1970, the world changed more than it had in the entire 500 - or perhaps even 1,000 or more - before that. Those adaptations made by the Council would have in the past been made over centuries and so seemed more natural. However, the world was going through centuries worth of change in decades.
The vernacular is one example of this. We live today in a much lamented microwave culture. The attention spans of most do not extend beyond a 30 second sound-byte. To attend Mass in a foreign language, to follow the prayers in a hand missal, and to still reverently pay attention to what was actually going on at the altar is a feat of which most of today's people are sadly not capable. The culture has simply trained them t
The culture has simply trained them too well to do otherwise. This is but one example of many which could be provided.
Of course these are faults of the people, no question! They are obstacles that we have put up by our own sins. We created this microwave culture, and while some - such as those whom might frequent Mr. Armstrong's blog - lament this, most do not. God however, has never been in the habit of rejecting us because of obstacles we have put up. Rather, He is the God who went so far as to become one of us in order to clear away obstacles.
And so I consider the Second Vatican Council to be an extention of the Incarnation. It is Christ continuing to be all things to all people - without compromising anything! - so that He might save us in spite of ourselves and the world in which we live.
Finally, I must add, James, that I do not agree with your - intended or not - characterization of all Traditionalists as the same. You said, for example, that they all use uncharitable language. I don't think this is fair. I do notice a very disturbing trend amongst the group of behaving in such a manner, and in fact it is one of the things that most turns me off to things like the Traditional Mass. However, I do think it is too broad a brush to paint all of these persons as such.
Peace and God bless
Since "traditionalists" exercise private judgment, much like Protestants, and indeed, this is a strong characteristic of their quasi-schism, we would expect that there are a number of variations amongst them, including levels of charity towards those who disagree. Of course. It's a given.
Nevertheless, as with Protestants, it is both necessary and permissible to generalize, because many clear trends and traits are manifest in so-called "traditionalism": e.g.: disdain for the Novus Ordo Mass, Vatican II, and ecumenism. I look for these signs every time I stumble across a "trad" site, and lo and behold, I would estimate that all three are present probably 95% of the time. It's like clockwork. Where one of them appears, the other two almost always are present, too. Error has a droning self-consistency.
My position is exactly that of Pope Benedict XVI: both forms of the Mass are valid and to be allowed. I don't have the slightest objection to someone preferring the Tridentine Mass: liturgically, aesthetically, theologically or whatever. Great. More power to them. How could anyone object to that?
My parish offers it (as soon as our bishop permitted it, when it was limited and subject to approval of the local bishop). We have had a reverent Novus Ordo Mass the entire 17 years I have been there. I despise liturgical mediocrity and abuses at Mass, in either form.
The problem is that the "trad" so often adopts the notorious Protestant "either/or" mentality: the Tridentine Mass is valid and the Novus Ordo Mass is not (or they adopt the less severe judgment that it is "objectively inferior"). They go beyond what the Church permits, and make Tradition and Church development incoherent and self-contradictory. They get legalistic and condemnatory, and dogmatic beyond what the Church permits. They very often think like liberals and Protestants. That's why their school[s] of thought can be distinguished as an erroneous outlook.
They could simply attend Tridentine Mass and shut up about the Novus Ordo, and let those who prefer that worship as they see fit, in good conscience, and very few would have a problem. But they can't do that. They have to create division and foster a quasi-schismatic mentality and pat each other on the back, and put up their divisive and uncharitable blogs, in order to confirm the error that they are in. This is the great sin in their ranks. It is the lack of charity that creates schism: a huge sin. They have to call those of us who are simply orthodox and who don't buy their various detestations "neo-Catholics" and "neo-Conservatives" and so forth.
Well, fine. Let them. I return the favor by refusing to grant that they have a monopoly on legitimate Catholic Tradition, and so I always put the word traditionalist in quotes when referring to them. I am a Catholic. If I must apply an additional descriptive to that (because of the crisis of liberalism that we find ourselves in), then I use "orthodox," because I accept all that the Church teaches and am obedient to the Holy Father and Holy Mother Church.
Note the lack of charity that Ryan Grant (with no documented evidence) extends to me personally:
". . . Dave Armstrong . . . who [is a] convert separated from historical Catholicism by the modernism pervading the Church since the Council."
Really? Why doesn't Ryan prove these extraordinary charges, if he insists on making them publicly?
What does it mean? I am in bed with the modernists? I am one of them? I supposedly ignore their errors and don't refute them? Any of those propositions are manifestly untrue, with tons of refuting evidences that could easily be offered.
Note the "rah-rah" post" -- typical of the herd mentality often observed among "trads":
http://terry58.stblogs.com/2008/...ing-athanasius/
Will any of these people actually do me the courtesy of explaining to me how I am some sort of modernist?
So am I to understand this Neo-Athanasius correctly, is it his point of view that people who have converted to Catholicism since Vatican II are not really Catholics because the post-Vatican II Church is infected with modernism? You mentioned that their views smack of Donatism; to me it seems they are more similar to the Gnostics of old claiming that they have some sort of insight or secret knowledge the rest of us don't have.
Personally, I tire of their yammering. No matter how well they dress up them up, their heretical views are self-defeating. If their views were the "Truth" then they would have fixed the Church by seeing to it a new pope was appointed. The fact that they haven't thus far demonstrates the lie behind their preaching. Their errors are self-refuting because they have no ability to correct what they perceive is wrong except to exercise the same solution that every other heretical group in the past did-leave the Church and start their own.
Frankly, this Neo-Athanasius is no different than the modernists that attempted to hi-jack the Church in the late 19th century. Like the modernists, they do not believe that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth despite the clear provision of 1 Tim. 3:15. What is the difference between him and other ala carte cafeteria Catholics such pro-aborts and liberals, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, or Ted Kennedy? The fact that he picked "hot dogs" when they chose "hamburger"? They both disregard the authority of the Church to bind them to its teachings.
Mr. Armstrong,
With the exception of factual errors I have made (i.e. Karl Keating not being a convert) your analysis over all is lackluster. I never said you are modernists or heretics, you have put those words in my mouth. I said that certain apologists in the mainstream of apologetics are separated from historical Catholicism by the modernism not by your modernism. I defy you to find where I said you are all heretics. I have actually considered you a gentlemen (until reading this hatchet job) and merely noted a) my disagreement with your outlook, confirmed by this so-called "fisking" on how you look at small "t" tradition. Why is there such massive apostasy and widespread heresy in the modern roman rite but not in the eastern rites? you never answered one of my points, you just used the same familiar arguments to which I have been accustomed, which lack substance now as they did then. b) I also noted my concern, and sometimes my outrage when EWTN, or the Apologetics mainstream treats this sacred discipline like the lineup to a baseball game. Where yours and others work in defense of the Catholic faith is good I acknowledge, and thank you for that. But when I dare vent that EWTN is getting presumptuous by declaring someone the "foremost apologist in the Church today", somehow I am a modernist and a heretic? What heresy? This is what I find the real private judgment, and then you accuse me, and traditionalists in general of all sorts of things which you can not possibly know, for which you have no possible proof, just a nice broad stroke. What is my real crime? I reject as good the prudential decisions of the last 40 years that you think have been pretty good. That really boils down to nothing more than a disagreement over particulars. I never singled you out as bad Catholics. In fact, what did I really say?
This is to me something highly problematic, even where the thinker is technically a good Catholic.
The only reference to you was based on your position, which I consider fallacious, on small "t" tradition. That was it!
c)Your understanding of sacramental theology needs work. I never denied ex opere operato and you have selectively refused to post that section from my original ranting which would prove it. I said there is more grace imparted at a Traditional Mass extrinsically. That there is the intrinsic and extrinsic element to the Mass, as well as any sacrament, is a foundational element to how grace is dispensed. This also proves my point about "historical Catholicism" as separated from today's feel good Catholicism which is terribly modernized and separated from the theological expression, thought and most importantly liturgical praxis from ancient and medieval Catholicism in the Latin Rite.
If you go back and re-read what I wrote, you will find the position perfectly orthodox, because the extrinsic celebration of the li
Shane said: My point is that in the Pian offering, it may appear to the average Mass-goer that what is being offered to the Father is the unconsecrated host.
Impossible. The average Pian Mass-goer in the past and today is taught to understand that the Communion Wafer is only bread until it is consecrated. They did and do not look to the Mass as a catechism lesson (an important difference in liturgical theology), but as a sacrificial prayer that propitiates the Father, and expression of the faith in which they had been catechised.
This is because it asks the Father, in the present tense, to accept the host - which has at that point not been consecrated.
No, the priest doesn't just ask the Father to accept the host -- he asks the Father to accept the host "which I, Your unworthy servant, offer to You." In other words, the prayer says the priest is going to offer the host -- since the offering is yet taking place at that time, the prayer cannot be taken to mean that bread is being offered to God.
It doesn't say anything about what the host will become,
Except for the fact that the prayer refers to "the spotless host," which cannot mean "bread," as a host, that is, a sacrifice, that is spotless or without blemish is always a living creature, not an inanimate oblation such as grain or libations.
nor does it look to the future in any way.
Again, you're mistaken. The priest says he is offering the host "to atone for my numberless sins, offenses, and negligences; on behalf of all here present and likewise for all faithful Christians living and dead, that it may profit me and them as a means of salvation to life everlasting." Expressing one's purpose and intention and hope and desire is certainly looking to the future. The Pauline Offertory, however, only says that the bread will become the bread of life, but does not state the reason for the oblation and fails to show knowledge of our sin or express hope for eternal life, i.e., the reason we need the sacrifice.
In fact, it seems to finish up the thought by the declaration Amen. In the context of Liturgical prayer, the current thought is finished with the Amen.
Throughout the Pian canon, each Amen finishes up a main thought - a particular petition. In the Pauline rite, we have the Great Amen, which finishes up the entire prayer of the Eucharistic Sacrifice.
Sorry, there is no "Great Amen" in the Pauline Missal. The anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer concludes with "Amen," but that Amen is not identified as "the Great Amen," nor is their direction or instruction to treat it as somehow unique or superlative. Emphasising the conclusion of the anaphora with music during Sunday Mass or on holy days has become customary, but it is purely optional. Of course, it was no doubt the intention of the Consilium to emphasise the unity of the anaphora as a single great petition -- that is why they removed most of the "Amens" from t
that is why they removed most of the "Amens" from the Roman Canon and did not include any Amens in the body of the new Eucharistic Prayers that they composed -- just the final Amen. But it should be remembered that the idea that "Amen" in the Mass or Divine Liturgy necessarily concludes a complete thought or intention is historically untenable. The Roman Rite included several Amens in its anaphora.
I am not charging the Pian rite with theological error. As I said, there are perfectly orthodox ways in which the Offertory is intended and can be understood.
Even more, there are no unorthodox or heterodox ways in which the Pian Offertory is intended, and if anyone understands it as offering unconsecrated bread as the Eucharistic Sacrifice that makes our peace with God, then that is an erroneous understanding. But then it is doubtful that anyone who understands Latin and English well enough to try to parse what the priest is saying during the Offertory would be likely to be ignorant of the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Nor would they miss the priest's petition after the prayer over the Chalice, "In a humble spirit and with a contrite heart, may we be accepted by You, O Lord, and my our sacrifice so be offered in Your sight this day as to please you, O Lord God," or, "Come, O Santifier, Almighty and Eternal God, and bless this sacrifice prepared for the glory of Your holy name," or, "Accept, Most Holy Trinity, this offering which we are making to You . . . ." Those words show that the offering is still to be conducted, is about to be performed -- the offering has been prepared for sacrifice, but has not yet been sacrificed. The liturgy then proceeds to the Eucharistic Prayer, in which the bread and the wine are shown to have become "My Body" and "the Chalice of My Blood." The Offertory prayers make clear that the sacrifice is the Body and Blood of Christ, not bread and wine.
The problem is that the vast majority of Catholics - even good, devout, and Baltimore Catechism educated ones - do not posess the theological training or thought to recognize this.
Since the Baltimore Catechism was designed for children, not adults, it shouldn't be surprising that an adult whose catechesis stopped with the Baltimore Catechism might not understand what the priest is saying and doing in the Offertory. Nevertheless, I am highly skeptical of your suggestion that Catholics who before Vatican II assisted at the Tridentine Mass, or who today assist at the Johannine use, are somehow apt to misinterpret the Offertory in the manner that you suggest. How could anyone think that a sacrifice that is being offered to atone for the sins of all Christians and to profit them as a means of salvation could be nothing more than bread? The very language of the offertory prayer over the host is so generous, so lofty, so dignified that it would be impossible for someone to conclude the priest would make a big fuss and to-do o
The very language of the offertory prayer over the host is so generous, so lofty, so dignified that it would be impossible for someone to conclude the priest would make a big fuss and to-do over nothing more than a little piece of bread.
The main meat of the Eucharistic prayer(s) - in both the Pian and Pauline rite - certainly make it clear that the body of Christ is being offered to the Father for our sins. However, in the Pian rite this additional concept that in some way the unconsecrated host is being offered for this purpose could easily be understood.
Well, there's offering and there's offering. I suppose in a sense one could say that the unconsecrated host IS being offered in the Offertory for that purpose -- and then it is consecrated, becoming the Body of Christ, so that it can fulfill that purpose.
Anyway, if the Johannine Missal certainly makes clear that the Body of Christ is being offered to the Father for our sins, then that means it doesn't matter that the Offertory does not explicitly refer to transubstantiation.
Whereas you say that the Pauline Offertory is truncated, I see it as a removal of this potential pitfall.
As I've said, that's a red herring -- I doubt anybody has ever been led to believe by the Johannine Offertory that it is unconsecrated bread that is our saving sacrifice.
In the Pauline rite, the bread and wine - the work of human, rather than Divine hands - is offered to God as just that, just as the Levites offered the first fruits. Then, once the consecration has taken place, the prayers offer to the Father the Lamb of God. It is neat and clean. It is not as beautiful, but it does not posses the possibility of this misunderstanding.
On the contrary, it is because the revised offertory prayers are so brief and unadorned, and focus so much on what the unconsecrated species are (while saying next to nothing of what they are being offered for), that it was necessary to mention more explicitly that the species will become Jesus, the bread of life and our spiritual drink -- otherwise one would naturally conclude that the unconsecrated bread and the wine are being offered (though one still would not know what they are being offered for). In the old rite's offertory, however, it was not stated as plainly what the oblations would become, because it didn't have to be: the very nature of the sublime language of the prayers conveyed the message that the offering about to take place is not merely the offering of physical food.
Jordanes said,
Impossible. The average Pian Mass-goer in the past and today is taught to understand that the Communion Wafer is only bread until it is consecrated. They did and do not look to the Mass as a catechism lesson (an important difference in liturgical theology), but as a sacrificial prayer that propitiates the Father, and expression of the faith in which they had been catechised.
It is agreed that the Mass is not a catechism lesson. My point, however, was exactly that the people know that the host is only bread until the consecration, and yet at this time in the Pian Liturgy - before that consecration - the priest offers it to the Father for the forgiveness of sins, complete with an Amen to finish off the thought. To the average lay person, this can cause great confusion insofar as they see mere bread being offered to the Father. I even know of a very orthodox and well-educated priest who believes that the mere wheat host is offered at this point for sins.
In your next paragraph, you assert that the prayer makes it clear that the offering is yet to take place, and so it is clear tht bread alone is not being offered, but I quote the actual text of the prayer:
"Receive, [present tense] O Holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Thine unworthy servant, offer unto Thee [present tense], my living and true God, for my countless sins, trespasses, and omissions; likewise for all here present, and for all faithful Christians, whether living or dead, that it may avail both me and them to salvation, unto life everlasting. Amen."
There is no indication whatsoever that this is a preface of any kind to the real offering which takes place as the host is consecrated. It reads precisely as it would if indeed bread alone were being offered.
You argue that the prayer makes this clear in that it refers to a "spotless host," which cannot be bread alone. This is a very subtle way of identifying the offering, however, that most lay people simpy will not gather. It is a very important point - you are entirely correct in your assesment of the actual language of the prayer. The point is that most people simply will not notice or comprehend the meaning or importance of this adjective.
You argue that, "expressing one's purpose and intention and hope and desire is certainly looking to the future." However, this is a circular argument. This point is valid, but is only meaningful because you and I know what the prayers are really saying. We know that the the offering being made for these intentions is really the body and blood of Christ. The way the prayer sounds however, does not convey this. Again, I quote the actual prayer:
"Receive, [present tense] O Holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Thine unworthy servant, offer unto Thee [present tense], my living and true God, for my countless sins, trespasses, and omissions; likewise for all h
"Receive, [present tense] O Holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Thine unworthy servant, offer unto Thee [present tense], my living and true God, for my countless sins, trespasses, and omissions; likewise for all here present, and for all faithful Christians, whether living or dead, that it may avail both me and them to salvation, unto life everlasting. Amen."
The priest mentions all these intentions alongside verbs offering in the present tense. If one looks at the Pian Offertory, it flat out reads as though the priest is presently offering the host for these intentions. We know what's really going on, so we can see he is looking to the future - but there's not a thing in the actual language of the prayer to indicate this.
You say that the Pauline rite has no Great Amen, but it is precisely in the Pauline rite that the Great Amen is really known as such. In the Pian rite, the equivalent is the "Minor Elevation." In fact, I have read traditionlist critiques of the Pauline rite seeking the removal of the Great Amen for various reasons and the return to the Minor Elevation. Additionally, the various Amens during the first Eucharistic prayer have not been removed, as you suggest, but they have rather been made optional.
These various Amens are actually impotant to this discussion. I specifically worded my argument such as to acknowlege that several Amens are found in the Pian canon prior to the Minor Elevation. The point is that each contains a complete thought. In other words, each of these sections would make sense apart from that which surrounds it. The first is said after the priest offers Christ to the Father and asks that the offerings be taken to Heaven. The second comes after the priest petitions God on behalf of the departed. The third comes after the priest asks the Father to bring us into the company of the saints and proceeds with the Minor Elevation.
Each of these sections in and of itself constitutes a complete thought - a complete prayer, as it were. They are all complimented by the context of one another, but would nevertheless essentially stand on their own, in a general sense. The first prayer is, "Father, accept this Sacrifice we offer you." The second is, "Father, have mercy on the dead." The third is, "Father, have mercy on us. Glory be to you."
My point is that when each of these Amens is said, the faithful - and the priest, for that matter - know what the Amen is for. The first Amen is the priest completeing His request that the Offering be taken to Heaven. The second is him completing his request for mercy on the dead, and the third is him completing his request for mercy on the people. The Amen at the end of the Offertory signifies the completion of the statement that the priest makes at that time, which happens to be the offering of the host. Surely the prayer anticipates the Consecration which is about to happen, but again, in th
Surely the prayer anticipates the Consecration which is about to happen, but again, in the ears and thoughts of the average lay-person at Mass, it sounds like the priest has just completed his thought of offering the unconsecrated host to the Father.
You quote the Preface and various other pre-Consecration prayers as indicating that the Offering is yet to be complete and thus making it clear that it is the body of Christ which is offered, but these prayers all have the very same problem as the Offertory. They each make petition to God for some thing, asking it in virtue of the oblation being offered, speaking in the present tense, when the only thing on the altar is bread and wine.
In fact, at the beginning of the Canon, the priest actually asks the Father to bless the Sacrifices being offered and makes the sign of the cross over the bread and wine! He asks that the unspotted sacrifices be accepted and blessed, and he makes the sign of blessing over them, while all the while they are still bread and wine. It just reinforces in a very powerful way that in some way bread and wine are being offered the the Father. The Sacrifices the Father is supposed to receive are the body and blood of Christ, yet when the priest blesses what he states to be these very sacrifices, he blesses bread and wine. It's a huge problem.
In fact, in total, in the Pian Missal mentions Sacrifice or offering 16 times - 12 of them occuring in the present tense prior to the Consecration. The faithful who attend the Pian Mass hear the priest offering in the present tense
In fact, in total, in the Pian Missal mentions Sacrifice or offering 16 times - 12 of them occuring in the present tense prior to the Consecration. The faithful who attend the Pian Mass hear the priest offering in the present tense
In fact, in total, in the Pian Missal mentions Sacrifice or offering 16 times - 12 of them occuring in the present tense prior to the Consecration. The faithful who attend the Pian Mass hear the priest offering in the present tense bread and wine to the Father three times more often than they here him offering the body and blood of Christ. Again, the theological intention of these prayers is that they all refer to the Consecrated host, but that is something that is only made clear by theological training. Absolutely nothing in the prayers or the Mass itself makes this clear. Your average lay person who is not nearly so knowledgable as you and I has a hugely erroneous idea being presented to him in the plain and simple language being used, even if that is not the deeper meaning intended by these words.
Your main point against all of this is a valid one - that is to say, if true, it by and large defeats my argument - but I do not think it is a sound one - that is to say, I do not think it is true. This point is that you do not believe that most lay Catholics would not misunderstand these words. I don't think this is the case. I have come across a great many lay Catholics from pre-Vatican II days who had all sorts of crazy ideas. Just as today, some knew their faith, while the majority did not. I will slightly qualify this by saying that I believe that lay Catholics prior to the 1960s knew some of the bigger points of their faith much better than do todays Catholics. They got the big stuff right. But they never had the deeper theological insight or training necessary to understand the depth of the theology of the Pian Missal. I concede in some respects it's depth, and my point is that it was too deep for your average Catholic then, and is too deep for your average Catholic now.
Peace and God bless
I want to make something clear btw... I really love the Pian Mass, generally speaking. I don't think it's perfect - it's not Diviniely inspired, so it couldn't be anyways. It really is very beautiful, and aside from a few things I do really like it, maybe even more than the Pauline Mass.
I just don't want anyone to think I am coming down on the Mass or bashing it. We're in a discussion here about a particular point, and so obviously most of what I have to say is going to be critical. That's the nature of argument.
Wow, someone seems a little angry...
A few things
1. I'm pretty sure he didn't call you or anyone else a modernist, but that modernism has invaded the Church since VII, and that is the Church you converted to (or something to that effect).
2. I didn't see one instance where his claims were actually refuted. I saw a lot of trying to discredit him by pulling out bits of other posts our of context, and an awful lot of criticism of so called "Traditionalists," but it would be a lot easier for me to take this post seriously if you would actually show me why the claims Athanasius made are wrong.
3. It seems like some commentors here have real problems with so called "Traditionalists", and their biggest problem seems to be the lack of charity on the tradionalists part. And just based on this comment box...uh...have any of you ever once looked in the mirror? Although Athanasius may have had some criticism of apologists, his post in general seemed very gentlemanly. Not so for many in this combox. I've seen him equaled to a liberal, Protestant, heretic, accused of a quasi-schismatic mentality, compared to Pro-abort Catholic politicians. And why? Because he accused someone of being a "modernist?" Oh wait, he didn't do that.
Lisa said: I'm pretty sure he didn't call you or anyone else a modernist, but that modernism has invaded the Church since VII, and that is the Church you converted to (or something to that effect).
In other words, Dave converted to Modernism. Ryan said Dave and other converts are separated from historical Catholicism because he converted to a Church caught in the throes of Modernist heresy. How is that not an accusation of heresy?
As for why Ryan has been compared to a Protestant, in my case it is because his statement that he won't accept the authority of Peter if Peter were to declare for all the Church to accept that John Paul II is in heaven and is worthy of veneration.
Lisa,
The implication though is that Dave converted to a modertnist church. So he must be modernist.
What is the Pian mass? I don't even know what it is.
Shane, thanks for your encouraging respose, you say;
'I don't know if you are aware or not or need this information, but the pro multis thing is a red-herring'
I am absolutely sure it is. I am a funny person person. It became So very important to me, then was not. When I once again (never really leaving the church) but when I regained my nomality-all that endless liturgical analysis, the rubrics, the orientation of the priest simply dissolved. As people on this site know already I am lazy in my reading (I don't say it proudly),but especially writing about the minutaie of liturgical language, the history of liturgical language.
I suspect the Trads anyay-I am absolutely sure their second rate scholars.
'Of course there is some benefit to having a set apart, sacred language'
I am intellectually ruled by GK Chesterton. In one of his essays he talks about 'the iron immortality of the Latin', and the fact 'that latin always says it intends to say' that it is precise.
I'll take a break here to anger the Trads and Characterise them; a lot of this is from the Golden age of the English catholic revival; Chesterbelloc, a little bit of a seige mentality because of the persecution of catholics in England. Blatant snobbishness deriving from Waugh. And most telling of all; anti-democratic.
(I suddenly can't believe I am writing this coming from where I have come from)
They can't move from there. It's hard to explain. They quote (and it's a beautiful quote) Fr. Faber;'the latin mass is the most beautiful thing this side of heaven'. AND IT IS. THAT'S WHY I WANT THE LATIN MASS BACK. But then (now) I don't go into why the Latin mass is superior or that the the mass is invalid. BECAUSE I AM A CATHOLIC AND THIS IS WHAT THE IDEFECTIBLE CATHOLIC CHURCH DECIDED AND i AM NOT GOING TO BE DISOBEDIENT CHRIST'S CHURCH.
(maybe that's where the anger comes from Lisa because all your questioning and criticism is damaging Christ's body).
cont.
Back to the the architypal trad. I've just thought I don't think you get as much of all this in non-speaking English speaking countries.
I think the new mass needs more ritual.
I am not contradicting myself.
I really wish more incense was spread about.
I love St' Giles's church at Cheadle by Pugin. I wish there was a revival there.
This is the point; THAT'S WHEN IN IN THAT MOOD. Mood is maybe a superficial word but I can't think of another.
In another mood-I love the people at mass who holds hands at the singing of the Our Father, I love to see altar girls, I love this expressionistic rendition of the satation of the cross. I am iin a better position than the Trads becae they have to deplore every innovation, they have decrty everything, in fact that's they do, decry, deplore
The implication though is that Dave converted to a modertnist church. So he must be modernist. That he agrees with a modernist church.
Just rading Mr Ryan's Post. Se we've all been duped.
'I said that certain apologists in the mainstream of apologetics are separated from historical Catholicism by the modernism not by your modernism.
Wouldn't it be better to state which apologists by name? Wouldn't that be more honest? What does separated from historical catholicism mean? Oh, that's it, they've been duped.
'I said there is more grace imparted at a Traditional Mass extrinsically.'
So you can calculate the amount of grace distributed? How much more?
'I reject as good the prudential decisions of the last 40 years that you think have been pretty good'.
That's right because you are working to restore the true catholic church, but (I don't know) I will still go to mass as a dreadful onerous duty if I can't get to a Tridentine mass.
There is a latin phrase, something-'sensum fidelium' The sense of the Faithful. Now Mr. Ryan you were characterise them as duped cafeteria catholics I am sure. But there is trather a lot of them (running into the hundreds of millions)You know there a few intelligent ones..
in Christ
I should proof read my posts, sorry
"Pian Mass" is one of the names for the "Tridentine" Mass, that which follows the missal that was mostly set by Pope St. Pius V (hence "Pian").
Hi Ryan,
With the exception of factual errors I have made (i.e. Karl Keating not being a convert) your analysis over all is lackluster. I never said you are modernists or heretics, you have put those words in my mouth.
Hardly. I asked a question, twice:
"But is Ryan claiming we're liberals and heretics? . . . Am I a modernist, too, even though I excoriate modernists all the time and have devoted part of one of my books to a hyper-critical analysis of their errors, and also one of my web pages?"
I asked more questions in the combox:
"What does it mean? I am in bed with the modernists? I am one of them? I supposedly ignore their errors and don't refute them?
Then I did make one statement: "Will any of these people actually do me the courtesy of explaining to me how I am some sort of modernist?" But this was exaggeration for rhetorical effect.
You also joked in another paper about my friend Al Kresta possibly being a modernist.
You tell me what all these remarks mean. Why make them at all?
I said that certain apologists in the mainstream of apologetics are separated from historical Catholicism by the modernism not by your modernism.
What do you mean by that? As far as I am concerned I am right in line with historical Catholicism.
I defy you to find where I said you are all heretics.
I have not (rightly understood) argued that you said that. I grant that my owe comment might be misunderstood, however, if not understood in its rhetorical intent. But you're saying stupid things by connecting me and other apologists with modernism in any way, shape, or form. You can explain what you meant by the relevant comment. Feel free.
I have actually considered you a gentlemen (until reading this hatchet job)
I've been just as tough in my criticism of other "trads." So if you used to think I am a gentleman and now don't, it seems to me that you 1) haven't read my other papers on the topic, or 2) object simply because this time the target of criticism is you. And I suppose you are a perfect gentleman when you trash Pope John Paul II's opinions? And now I cease to be one because I critiqued your remarks?
and merely noted a) my disagreement with your outlook, confirmed by this so-called "fisking" on how you look at small "t" tradition. Why is there such massive apostasy and widespread heresy in the modern roman rite but not in the eastern rites?
There are a host of reasons for the prevalence of many Catholic dissidents.
you never answered one of my points, you just used the same familiar arguments to which I have been accustomed, which lack substance now as they did then.
I've answered plenty. I have a whole separate paper about your comment that I dissent against the pope in favoring the war in Iraq. I'm just as acquainted with your general line of thought, too, believe me.
b) I also noted my concern, and sometimes my outrage when EWTN, or the Apologetics mainstream treats this sacred discipline like the lineup to a baseball game. Where yours and others work in defense of the Catholic faith is good I acknowledge, and thank you for that. But when I dare vent that EWTN is getting presumptuous by declaring someone the "foremost apologist in the Church today", somehow I am a modernist and a heretic?
Huh? First of all, I agreed with your opinion that this was an excessive remark. You seem to have missed that. I wrote:
"I agree that it was a silly claim: not plausible in and of itself, and not conducive to a healthy humility, but it is a far cry from a feared 'counter magisterium.' "
Secondly, when did I ever say YOU were a modernist? I argued as I always do: that "trads" often think in many ways like liberals and Protestants, but I am not claiming that they ARE that. It is essentially a reductio ad absurdum argument: "your premises are dangerously similar to worldviews that you yourself despise, so maybe you should re-examine your premises?".
What heresy?
I haven't made that accusation. You're simply exhibiting a cookie-cutter example of what I almost always find in "trad" ramblings: what I would call a "quasi-schismatic" mentality.
This is what I find the real private judgment, and then you accuse me, and traditionalists in general of all sorts of things which you can not possibly know, for which you have no possible proof, just a nice broad stroke.
I've interacted with dozens of "trads". I'm only going by what I have commonly observed over and over and what you yourself have stated.
What is my real crime?
Lousy thinking and the lack of charity that is typical of the quasi-schismatic position that you have staked out.
I reject as good the prudential decisions of the last 40 years that you think have been pretty good. That really boils down to nothing more than a disagreement over particulars.
It boils down to a rejection of the Mind of the Church as it has been in the last three (well, four) pontificates, and a scenario where one must choose your judgment over that of this Holy Father and the last. And you think a sane Catholic should side with you, when they see your trashing of Pope John Paul II?
I never singled you out as bad Catholics. In fact, what did I really say?
Not me, huh; only Pope John Paul II?
I'm asking you to clarify for us what you meant by the statement, and also the one where you implied that Al Kresta was a modernist. If you had search capability for your blog I could find much more of these sorts of questionable sentiments, I'm sure. Maybe I can with Google.
Do you use the term "neo-Catholic"?
This is to me something highly problematic, even where the thinker is technically a good Catholic.
The only reference to you was based on your position, which I consider fallacious, on small "t" tradition. That was it!
What IS my position, since you seem to know what I think about things?
c)Your understanding of sacramental theology needs work. I never denied ex opere operato and you have selectively refused to post that section from my original ranting which would prove it.
I didn't say you denied it. What I wrote was: "these two comments smack of the Donatist rigorist heresy and a denial of ex opere operato".
I said there is more grace imparted at a Traditional Mass extrinsically. That there is the intrinsic and extrinsic element to the Mass, as well as any sacrament, is a foundational element to how grace is dispensed.
Good.
This also proves my point about "historical Catholicism" as separated from today's feel good Catholicism which is terribly modernized and separated from the theological expression, thought and most importantly liturgical praxis from ancient and medieval Catholicism in the Latin Rite.
That has nothing to do with what I wrote. It was a speculation based on what you wrote, and knowing that the Donatists took the position that heretical priests meant that the sacraments they dispensed were not valid.If I have misrepresented your thought in that speculation, I apologize for it.
Hi Lisa,
Wow, someone seems a little angry...
I see. The old "he disagrees passionately so he must be ANGRY" fallacy . . . Not true . . . I do apologetics I defend the Church, and I am passionate when I believe I see serious error. It doesn't equate to being angry.
A few things
1. I'm pretty sure he didn't call you or anyone else a modernist,
As I have stated above. He did, however, joke in a sort of "Top Ten list" about my good friend Al Kresta being one.
but that modernism has invaded the Church since VII, and that is the Church you converted to (or something to that effect).
It hasn't managed to subvert any doctrine, which is what you should be concentrating on. There are plenty of liberals around, though, and my mentor Fr. Hardon used to say that modernist was the greatest crisis in the history of the Church. I agree with him, which is why I fight it, and have a web page and half a book devoted to that error.
2. I didn't see one instance where his claims were actually refuted.
I don't see one instance where you have overthrown any argument that I made, that you obviously didn't notice. There is an entire paper about the Iraq War issue, with plenty of documentation.
I saw a lot of trying to discredit him by pulling out bits of other posts our of context,
Right: the standard response when people are unable or unwilling to rationally interact.
and an awful lot of criticism of so called "Traditionalists,"
That is accurate. Thanks.
but it would be a lot easier for me to take this post seriously if you would actually show me why the claims Athanasius made are wrong.
I've already done so. If you don't want to deal with what I wrote, fine. It's a free country.
3. It seems like some commentors here have real problems with so called "Traditionalists",
I certainly do. I think it is a tremendously damaging outlook.
and their biggest problem seems to be the lack of charity on the tradionalists part.
This being the essence of a schismatic attitude, yes . . .
And just based on this comment box...uh...have any of you ever once looked in the mirror? Although Athanasius may have had some criticism of apologists, his post in general seemed very gentlemanly. Not so for many in this combox. I've seen him equaled to a liberal, Protestant, heretic, accused of a quasi-schismatic mentality, compared to Pro-abort Catholic politicians. And why? Because he accused someone of being a "modernist?" Oh wait, he didn't do that.
I have made my opinions clear in my reply to Ryan. you can deal with my actual opinions if you like, or phantom, straw-man ones. The latter doesn't accomplish much.
Hi Lisa, I wanted to respond to your criticism that I was not being gentlemanly since I was one of the commenters you referenced in your remarks. A person can call himself as a "traditionalist" all he wants, but that does not make him one. A traditionalist in my mind should not be someone who yearns for the good ol' days before Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass; a traditionalist should be a person who fully follows the Tradition of the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. And one of those Traditions happens to be to submit to the authority and teachings of the bishops of the Church, the first in primacy and authority happens to be the Pope. My comparison of Mr. Ryan to the liberal pro-aborts who debase the name "Catholic" (which is not the case with Mr. Ryan who happens to write a great deal of things on his blog I happen to agree with) was solely to point out the fact, that like them, he picks and chooses what he wants to believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church. No more, no less. Isn't that what a modernist does? Pick and choose what they want to believe? Isn't that what liberals do, accuse someone of engaging in practices that they themselves engage in to rationalize their own shortcomings?
I don't like labels. I have never liked labels, particularly when a person chooses to label themselves as something they are not in order to claim some sort of moral, ethical, or spiritual high ground that they are not entitled to claim. I don't like when Protestants do it. I don't like it when Catholics do it. A Catholic should not call himself a "traditionalist" unless he is first willing to be a "Traditionalist."
Finally, pertaining to the tenor of my remarks, since Mr. Ryan apparently doesn't like ecumenism, you can hardly fault me for not being ecumenical. In this instance, being truthful was more important than being nice.
Thus, I stand by my remarks and hope Mr. Ryan can take something postive from them and build upon them. He seems to be a person who has a lot to offer our faith if he only chooses to do so from within the Church and not apart from it.
PS, Prior to Vatican II, the Tridentine Mass was not always our Mass. Were those who advocated to change the Mass from what we did use to the form of the Tridentine Mass modernists as he would use the term? What about the Eastern Rite Churches which never used the Tridentine Mass, are the liturgies of St. Basil or St. John Chrysostom or St. Addai , etc. somehow defective or lack something the Tridentine Mass has? Heck, why not go back to the liturgies described by St. Hippolytus, St. Justin Martyr, St. Iraeneus, or St. Serapion if being "traditional" (small t) is so importantt? And if we going to be all about being "traditional," I vote we return to the original Greek, too, since that was the lingua sacrae of the original liturgies! Latin is way too modern.
Ryan wants to say that he didn't call me a modernist? That's fine. I didn't definitively say he did. I suspected that he might think so, to some extent, from his rhetoric. He can clarify that.
But while we're waiting, I DID discover some very interesting facts on his blog about those whom he DOES think are modernists:
I think Benedict XVI is a liberal modernist who has a taste for reverant [sic] liturgy and some traditional things. I think he's probably rather benign. This is a step in the right direction, no matter how grinchy he looks. . . . Even if all of Benedict XVI's intentions were right and good, he wouldn't want to end up like John Paul I.
Let's look at it this way, he's a modernist that values the Traditional liturgy. Don't expect to see the apostasy of John Paul II's pontificate going on.
(12-23-05)
http://
athanasiuscm.blogspot.com...536678210198528
Without question Benedict is wasting his time on "dialogue", as John Paul II did. But I don't think he is "evil", as he hasn't done the apostate things JPII did. . . . I do not doubt that Benedict will be judged for failing to do what he can to evangelize jews and others. However, until he does something as ridiculous as John Paul II, I will continue to cut him little slack. I know he is a modernist, but lets see what the Holy Spirit can work on him now that he is the successor of St. Peter . . .
(12-26-05)
http://
athanasiuscm.blogspot.com...561256889137724
Several years ago Michael Davies (RIP) suggested there should be a separate rite like the Byzantine Rite for the Traditional Mass. Another solution is plain resistance like the SSPX. That works for now, but it does not work longterm. Michael Davies' suggestion is bad because it separates the real Roman Rite, he patrimony of Western Tradition from the life of the Church, and makes us a marginalized little rite like the Eastern Churches, vying for life within the western Church. It also doesn't change hearts or protect from supression by a modernist prelate. The SSPX's solution as I said works in the short term. But in the long term, the visible Church is still packed with modernists saying don't go there.
(8-9-06)
http://athanasiuscm.blogspot.com...cal-
crisis.html
Pope Benedict has indeed done little that we would expect of a Traditional Pope, and this can be easily discerned from the warm greeting he has received from modernist and bonified heretics like Hans Kung and Richard McBrien. These men are heretics, because they deny doctrines as fundamental as Apostolic Succession, the Eucharist and the Resurrection. However there is no evidence that Benedict is. If anything he is just a modern liberal who has a taste for conservative liturgy.
(4-29-06)
http://athanasiuscm.blogspot.com...ew-part-
ii.html
When it comes down to it, dear reader, I am not smart enough to figure this out. Or maybe I am and I haven't found the answer yet. Either way I have a difficulty because my head tells me that whatever the Pope says officially goes, and my Sensus Catholicus says that the SSPX is carrying on Catholic tradition and doing good work for Christ and His Church.
When it comes down it, dear reader, I don't have a definitive answer to give you. I really don't know anymore what I should answer concerning the SSPX's status. All I know is, that I am willing to cut the society some slack, because they are doing good. I'm willing to say, if I was preaching the gospel to someone, rather than send them to the Novus Ordo Church where they can be a good protestant, I would rather send them to the SSPX Church. Maybe some of you will applaud me, some of you will criticize me, be that as it may, I don't know the answer to the question, I'm just following my Sensus Catholicus.
(5-5-06)
http://athanasiuscm.blogspot.com...rning-
sspx.html
If there was an SSPX Mass nearby I would go to it as well.
(12-5-05)
http://
athanasiuscm.blogspot.com...383065686581960
More from Pontificator Ryan:
The votes are in, and Benedict XVI is acclaimed by more liberals. Funny that, I thought he was supposed to be a conservative Pope. Time to really step up prayers for the Holy Father, because from the constant liberal applause we can draw two conclusions:
a) As people like me have been saying all along, Benedict is a liberal like the rest of them, but just happens to have traditional tastes in liturgy, or:
b) He really truly has changed all of his former liberal positions and is just pretending to be more open and liberal, and soon he is going to really be God's rottweiler and take a bite into liberalism.
Based on what we've seen and what we know, who really thinks its choice b? Yeah exactly. Keep praying, if we're lucky we will get freedom for the Traditional Mass and less absurdity than John Paul II. Don't expect anything more, just pray.
(3-18-06)
http://athanasiuscm.blogspot.com...nedict-
xvi.html
The "Traditionalists' are very like Mr Samgrass in Brideshead Revisited. He's a don who knows everything about the faith, who knows which ecclesiastics are in the ascendecy, the finer points of canon law, all the rest of it, then Waugh writes 'he had everything BUT the Faith'.
I feel like that about (a lot) of them now.
Their missing the most important thing; namely faith in Christ and in His Church.They're too bogged down in the intricacies of Church law.
And it's a terrible conspiratorial mind-set. Everything is suspect. They don't Trust anyone.
You know ecumenism is a great tool for the apologist. When it comes to dabate and the Protstants can't say we catholics are his brothers and sisters in Christ. Because of Vatican 2 we now say they are. It shows that The Catholic Church has more charity, is more open to people.
And which institution is the only one to be bringing people of different faiths together in this troubled world? The Catholic Church.
A radical thought; but I somehow secretly feel that the magesterial beauty of the latin mass almoast had to be sacrificed for the spreading of the Word. Truth is more important than beauty. This thought comes from Robert Bensen where he says something like-'The Catholic church would give up everything for Christ'.
in Christ,
The photo of Ryan Grant Dave has put up? Young fogeyism.
They're all of a type; from his nose in the air to the pipe.
'Contra mundum' is the name of a chapter in Brideshead.
Against the world. Yes, that's their position.
Donnish, anti-democratic. and deliberately archaic;. He wrote to Dave; 'I have actually considered you a gentlemen' which amounts to a deliberate archaism now.
And the truth is all the writers of the Catholic revival wouldn't have cared to be gentlemen at all. Chesterton despised the term, Belloc would have laughed if you had called him a gentleman.
Mr. Armstrong,
I am a little unclear on what you mean by “traditionalist”, and I think your quasi-schismatic label is a bit offensive since I would probably be considered a traditionalist by most accounts. Your main characterization from your comments above, seems to be that traditionalists take issue with the NO mass, ecumenism, and Vatican II. Cardinal Raztinger expressed some concerns about the NO mass too (for example in his preface to “The Reform of the Roman Liturgy”). He also expressed displeasure with certain ecumenical efforts (like the Assisi gatherings), and wants Vatican II to be relegated to its proper place among the other twenty ecumenical councils, and interpreted in the light of tradition (Christmas address to the curia 2005). So is he a quasi-schismatic as well?
Then you assert that traditionalists “exercise private judgment,” implying that we question Church doctrine or authority. This is literally nonsense. First, you have to distinguish between actual schismatic traditionalists who reject the validity of the new mass, and the authority of the bishops, and trads who are in full communion with the Church. You are conflating the two groups, which cannot be linked together logically since the former are actual schismatics. You even wrote, “I don't have the slightest objection to someone preferring the Tridentine Mass: liturgically, aesthetically, theologically or whatever.” Well, which is it? Is it ok to prefer the TLM for all those reasons or is it protestant style private judgment? The only things traditionalists exercise private judgment about are the things Catholics are allowed to have differing opinions on, like which liturgy is more edifying for the faithful or the prudence of certain ecumenical efforts.
You commented that traditionalists can’t just go to a TLM and ignore the NO if they don’t like it. I think the problem is that trads see certain aspects of the NO mass as somewhat banal and so they feel it deprives fellow Catholics of the proper spiritual nourishment they deserve. That is why traditionalists can’t just leave it alone. I’m not really familiar with your work, but it sounds like you would advocate for proper, reverent liturgy. Why bother? Why not enjoy your reverent Latin NO mass, and let St. Boso’s have their clown mass? That’s obviously an exaggeration, but that is kind of how trads see it. They are genuinely concerned for their fellow Catholics. Except for the actual schismatics, trads recognize the NO as a valid mass. But they argue about it because they want all Catholics to have the best. Sorry if that is uncharitable in your estimation.
Hi Benedictus, you are not a traditionalist (small t), you are a Traditionalist (big T). While you prefer the blessings of the Tridentine Mass, you do you recognize the validity of the NO. You are still adhering to the authority of the Church. There is nothing wrong with that whatsoever. Some people prefer to say the rosary, others the Divine Mercy Chaplet. That kind of view is ok as long as you recognize the right of other Catholics to use either one.
Now if Mr. Ryan would have said, "If John Paul II is canonized as a saint, I do not wish to invoke his intercession" or "I prefer the beauty of the Tridentine Mass over the NO" and left it at that, he would have been perfectly justified in doing so. However, he went much further than that and stated that he would not recognize his canonization as valid and questions the legitimacy of the NO. That is the difference between a Traditionalist (ok) and a traditionalist (a modernist who wants to pick and choose what he chooses to believe-not ok).
Hi Benedictus,
Thanks for your comment.
I am a little unclear on what you mean by “traditionalist”, and I think your quasi-schismatic label is a bit offensive since I would probably be considered a traditionalist by most accounts.
Not necessarily, if you understand what I mean by "traditionalist" (in quotes). For example, Ben Douglass: former associate of Bob Sungenis, didn't fit it when we clarified that in discussion.
My standard definition that I have utilized appears in the first six propositions of the following paper:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...ist-
errors.html
Your main characterization from your comments above, seems to be that traditionalists take issue with the NO mass, ecumenism, and Vatican II.
They do do that. among other things.
Cardinal Raztinger expressed some concerns about the NO mass too (for example in his preface to “The Reform of the Roman Liturgy”).
Mostly with abuses of same, where I and virtually all orthodox Catholics I know are in wholehearted agreement.
He also expressed displeasure with certain ecumenical efforts (like the Assisi gatherings),
One can be critical of the prudence of certain things. I have no problem with that. it is the overall attitude of scorn and "pontifications" of so-called "trads" that I object to.
and wants Vatican II to be relegated to its proper place among the other twenty ecumenical councils, and interpreted in the light of tradition (Christmas address to the curia 2005).
As do all orthodox Catholics.
So is he a quasi-schismatic as well?
Not at all. Not in the slightest. But he is a "modernist" according to Ryan, as I documented from his words above. What do you think of that? Is that a goofy position or not?
Then you assert that traditionalists “exercise private judgment,” implying that we question Church doctrine or authority. This is literally nonsense. First, you have to distinguish between actual schismatic traditionalists who reject the validity of the new mass, and the authority of the bishops, and trads who are in full communion with the Church. You are conflating the two groups, which cannot be linked together logically since the former are actual schismatics.
Obviously, that is why I use the term "quasi-schismatics", in recognizing this very distinction. I have found that self-described "trads" often skirt right up to the edge of a proposition, while being smart enough not to go over the edge. I talk about this at great length in my paper cited above.
You even wrote, “I don't have the slightest objection to someone preferring the Tridentine Mass: liturgically, aesthetically, theologically or whatever.” Well, which is it? Is it ok to prefer the TLM for all those reasons or is it protestant style private judgment?
The Catholic has every right (especially now) to prefer one rite over another. That's fine. We have 22 rites, I believe. Great, wonderful! Liturgical diversity. I've always thought that. The problem is where those who do so (as Paul noted) have to get legalistic and condemnatory towards other forms. The pope have said that both are acceptable. You can argue with him if you don't think so.
The only things traditionalists exercise private judgment about are the things Catholics are allowed to have differing opinions on, like which liturgy is more edifying for the faithful or the prudence of certain ecumenical efforts.
It's the attitude with which these things are done. Lack of charity and a constant critical attitude that knows no bounds is the seed of schism.
You commented that traditionalists can’t just go to a TLM and ignore the NO if they don’t like it. I think the problem is that trads see certain aspects of the NO mass as somewhat banal and so they feel it deprives fellow Catholics of the proper spiritual nourishment they deserve. That is why traditionalists can’t just leave it alone. I’m not really familiar with your work, but it sounds like you would advocate for proper, reverent liturgy. Why bother? Why not enjoy your reverent Latin NO mass, and let St. Boso’s have their clown mass? That’s obviously an exaggeration, but that is kind of how trads see it. They are genuinely concerned for their fellow Catholics. Except for the actual schismatics, trads recognize the NO as a valid mass. But they argue about it because they want all Catholics to have the best. Sorry if that is uncharitable in your estimation.
I think that is a fair point. I agree that this could be done in a proper spirit. Ryan Grant does not possess such a spirit at the present time, and is an extremist, as seen in his advocacy of the SSPX and his calling the Holy Father a modernist and JPII (falsely) a host of names. Most "trads" who engage in these criticisms do not, in my opinion. Occasionally there is a balanced critique that doesn't go overboard. As you noted, the pope himself has done some of that. But he is in a position to DO it, you see.
Who is Ryan Grant? Why should anyone listen to what he says when he rails against popes and the Church? This is the point. He speaks for no one but himself. He has no authority. Yet he hypocritically rails against (most) lay apologists who DO have a great deal of delegated authority to speak for and defend Holy Mother Church.
I and all Catholic apologists defend the Church against her enemies and detractors. I contend with atheists, liberals, homosexual advocates, pro-aborts, Protestant anti-Catholics, you name it. But Ryan spends most of his time pontificating and running down the Church and her leaders, the popes.
Can't you see the huge difference between the two things? Most "trads" spend almost all their time tearing down others (often unfairly and slanderously). It's rarely the case that they do that and ALSO spend some time defending what we all hold in common. No, they'd rather devote themselves to all their rantings and ravings and telling everyone what they should believe in order to be a REAL Catholic.
I defend the papacy, Mary, the Catholic view on ecclesiology, soteriology, the communion of saints, purgatory, penance, and all disputed Catholic doctrines and practices. But Ryan and others like him have no time to engage in such constructive activities?
I think Mr Ryan has probably fled to the hills. Not like the true St.Athanasius hiding in his cave with the Truth, but in retreat. But if he does come back for a peek, I would like to say this to him; Evelyn Waugh wrote Nancy Mitford-'this new council has knocked the stuffing out of me'. In a sense you need all the stuffing knocked out of you. You need every bit of stuffing knocked out of you ( like Christ high atop Golgotha) so you can get right down to a basic position. Right down to the Truth of a position. Am I with the Chuch or not? Do I beieve the Church in Rome NOW is Christ's true church? If you answer in the in the affirmative you HAVE to accept all the changes.
in Christ
Dave,
I read the link you provided and now I understand what you mean by “traditionalist.” I was confused at first because I don’t use the term that way. I would probably use “radical traditionalist” for the same, or maybe “angry trad”. Anyway, it’s unfortunate, and sometimes confusing, that we need all these labels. I generally use traditionalist to mean someone who simply prefers the traditional rites, but fully accepts the authority of the Church and the modern Popes. After all, it’s not very traditional to reject Church authority. But I will keep in mind that “traditionalist” for you = “rad trad” for me.
Regarding concerns about the NO that the Holy Father expressed before his election, it is true that most of his concerns are with abuses, but there are some elements of the modern missal itself that he has critiqued. But it was a good point to note that he is actually in a position to do that. I think it is ok for regular laymen to speculate about and discuss these issues, but certainly we need to submit our opinions to the authority of the Church.
But he[Pope Benedict] is a "modernist" according to Ryan…
I’m not trying to defend Ryan’s writing; he can do that himself if he wants. But no, I don’t think it is appropriate to label His Holiness as a modernist.
Obviously, that is why I use the term "quasi-schismatics"…
Ok, I understand what you mean, but I submit that “quasi-schismatic” is not a clear term.
It's the attitude with which these things are done.
I agree that lack charity is a pervasive problem, particularly with regard to giving people the benefit of the doubt. But I think this is more of a problem on the internet than in “real life”. I have had very polite discussions about these topics in person, even with a guy (not Ryan) who called Benedict a modernist.
I agree that this could be done in a proper spirit… Most "trads" who engage in these criticisms do not… Most "trads" spend almost all their time tearing down others
If you are talking about trads on the internet, maybe this is true. It seems to me there is much higher ratio of “angry trads” to “level headed trads” on the internet than in real life, even among the more extreme trads. In real life I don’t know anyone like that, and I go to an all traditional parish (diocese approved and staffed), and I know people associated with the SSPX. Perhaps, due to your profession, you are exposed to a disproportional number of angry trads.
I don’t have any problem with you taking exception to Ryan Grant’s post. You were called out personally, I understand where you are coming from. My only concern was your characterization of traditionalists, but I think most of that was due to a misunderstanding of how the term was used. Even still, it seems to me that your definition of traditionalist, given in the paper you linked above, really only applies to the minority of those devoted to the traditional rites.
Excellent, Benedictus. Working through definitions is always good. Ryan fits my definition of "trad" or "quasi-schismatic" to a tee. He is virtually a quintessential case.
I myself would pretty much fit into your definition of traditionalist. I prefer the Novus Ordo (Latin) but have no objection whatsoever to others preferring the Tridentine Mass. I prefer the term "orthodox Catholic" if I must describe myself at all. I accept all that the Church teaches and I defend it, sometimes at personal cost.
I realize it is true that the Internet gives one a somewhat jaded view of reality and "statistics" or overall perspective. I've had sedevaca