The more the Hitchcocks are forced on this issue, the more it seems that they are, unfortunately, deeply self-deluded people who live in a strange reality of their own devise.
Well, I can't go as far as GF/B.
Adoremus has value as a news-transmitter, and as a source of documentation (both in print and on their invaluable website.)
It is not clear that the Hitchcock family has a case of megalomania--rather, it IS clear that the Church is divided on the topic of liturgy and that the Hitchcocks cannot easily reconcile the difference.
With due deference, I must dissent from this posting and the tenor of the threads since then.
How many of us have taken solace in the Adoremus Hymnal precisely because it is a refuge from the silliness of the music books of the previous thirty years.?
How many of us have been grateful to the Adoremus society's bulletin for alerting us to the silliness being perpetrated in so many corners, since forewarned is forearmed?
How many of us have appreciated the records from the National Conference of Catholic Bishops' meetings? Again, forewarned is forearmed.
If there is silliness at Adoremus, it is partly a result of the existing legislation. Witness the article titled something like "Unless the diocesan bishop determines otherwise." When a diocesan bishop has permission to ignore a specifically approved indult granted for the United States, one rightly wonders what his obligation is. When anyone with half an ear can see armies of Extraordinary Ministers and recognize a bad thing when he sees it, what is one to make from the fact that it is quite possible to read the document banning them as allowing any bishop to create them for a longer time than a single occasion. The problem with bad application of the law, often, is badly written law in the first place. Perhaps with an improvement in the clarity of the laws, people at Adoremus will not be seen to be on the fence, because the position they have held will be recognized as no longer legitimately existing. They will then take a new position.
Strange. Tonight I tried to visit "Musings of a Pertinacious Papist," but it timed out and failed to download even after several attempts. Then I tried again, and got this message:
"You are not authorized to view this page
"You might not have permission to view this directory or page using the credentials you supplied."
As far as I know, nothing has changed on my end, so I'm wondering if there's a technical problem on the other end. Or did I do something to make Dr. Blosser mad at me?
Since I can't get to the weblog, I've got to my "history" and clicked on one of the links to Dr. Blosser's commentboxes, which is how I can post this message.
Well, whatever the problem was, I've done a restart and it's gone away . . . .
Mr. Potter,
Not sure what the problem was. May be our server. I've had some difficulties of the sort you describe too. Glad things are working again.
Mr. Garton-Zavesky,
Points well taken. I've appreciated Adoremus since it first appeared. I just wish it weren't so preoccuppied with trying to fix the Novus Ordo, at the apparent cost of losing sight of the original objective of V-II. The recent works of Aidan Nichols and Alcuin Reid point the way in this latter regard.
I totally agree with Prof. Blosser's latest comment. I never said there wasn't some value in Adoremus, I said that the Hitchcocks have demonstrated an odd outlook. As for legislation, let's not be legal positivists: an immoral law is no law at all. If a local Bishop legislates against the Holy See, his law is null and void, and obeying it is disobeying God and His Holy Church. Legal positivism and the false obedience that flows from it are the biggest problems I have with many (not all) of the Adoremus crowd and with CUF.
Hello
Should not the Roman Missal of Paul VI, how it is celebrated, and so forth, be the main (exclusive) target of the 'reform of the reform'? Practically speaking, if this is not the main focus, how can the majority of Catholics of the Latin rite ever be reached, and benefit from the traditional goods and beauty that flow from liturgical orthodoxy? Leaving the 'Novus Ordo' in the hands of so-called 'progressives' and 'liberals' would be, in my opinion, a total disaster - with grave long-term consequences.
Further, would it not be a mistake, - particularly in this time of near total crisis in western Catholic liturgical history, and with the many other horrible problems within the Church, - to subject the 1962 Roman Missal to the Vatican II SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM? What possible reason is there to think this would not again lead to less than happy results? Has not anyone learned anything? Sorry, but I have no trust and confidence in any post-Vatican II liturgical establishment, idealists, experts, ecclesial authorities, or whomever – no matter how ‘orthodox’ or ‘conservative’. Prove yourselves with the Roman Missal of Paul VI, for the Glory of God, and for the good of starving and confused Catholic souls.
For the sake of the 'traditionalists' loyal to Rome, and in recognition of the need to end and heal the growing schism(s) in the Church, why would anybody (including the Pope) risk destabilizing the ‘Tridentine Mass’ by introducing ‘changes’ or ‘improvements’ into it, and probably provoking, frightening, scandalizing, and even perhaps harming the souls of the faithful needing stability, and so on? I would strongly suggest, for the peace and doctrinal sanity of the Church, to forget about 'reforming' the 1962 Roman Missal. It needs protection, conservation, and the like, not Vatican II reform. This is the responsible course of action, in my opinion.
Thanks!
Phil,
The experience of the faithful does have weight. You could not, for instance, shove the Tridentine or a Latin 1975 Mass down the throats of a congregation that had grown accustomed to clap-happy festivities that have the Mass as their substrate. It would not be prudent.
That being said, two things need to happen. Either 1) universal indult with wide application; or 2) the 1975 Mass needs to be said according to the mind of the VII Council Fathers.
Of course, #2 will probably only follow from #1 and not the other way around.
In that regard, I think the crowds--including Adoremus Society--who are not pushing for widely accessible celebrations of the Tridentine Mass are fooling themselves.
Right now, there are two poles, the extreme left and the folks who want to celebrate the 1975 Mass in plain English without banalities, inanities, and degradations.
In terms of social demographics, most people fall by default in the center of two avaialable extremes. By making the Tridentine Mass a widely accessible extreme to the right, you would de facto render the Brompton Oratory version of the 1975 Mass the center.
Folks on the extreme left intuitively sense this. It's a shame those on the side of reverence and sanity are less keen to such dynamics.
I would point out that, demographics be damned, one St. Francis of Assisi rebuilding San Damiano Chapel in obedience to our Lord's command did more to revive the faith than all the Tridentine Masses being celebrated in Italy at that time.
Also, Jesus redeemed the world through his obedience to the Father when the Jewish priesthood was at a high point of intellectual development but a low point of spiritual rigor and vigor.
In short, in terms of demographics, wide application of a universal Tridentine indult is the way to go. In the absence of that, though, we still have no alibis.
Well, I had dinner with the Hitchcocks last Saturday, and I can assure all of you that they are not living in a universe of their own. They understand the issues that have been broached in Phil's article and in the comments here and want, like the Pope, to see a "reform of the reform" centered on improving both the editio typica and the translations of the currently normative (1970) Missal. The disagreements among the Adoremus set are about the tactics best suited to bring that reform about and how to do it more in conformity with Sacrosanctum Concilium as the Pope understands that document.
Disagreement on those questions is inevitable and, whatever the eventual answers from Rome are, not everybody will be happy with them. Liturgy just has become a more vexed topic than at any time since the late 1960s. That's why I favor making the N.O. better rather than a universal indult that would effectively institutionalize two Roman rites.
Hey! How dare you guys not talk about homosexuality in this commentbox!!!
Jordan:
Yes, it's refreshing to be on point by being off point!
Best,
Mike
Commenting by HaloScan
