Perhaps the Vatican were not happy to receive their criticisms at a time of a proposed move to beatify Paul VI (first I heard of it), but the Vatican were equally averse to hearing any criticism of Escriva at the time of his beatification.
The Hildebrands' chief criticism of that saintly Pope is that he refused to make Humanae Vitae "infallible". Note that the same criticism can be lodged against John Paul II and especially against Benedict XVI, who thwarted the movement to have Humanae Vitae made infallible.
The problem with the Hildebrands -- who are setting themselves up as Doctors of the Church -- is that they see all change as betrayal. That is exactly the attitude that spawned many schisms in the past. The article posted above is the eccentric fantasy of an entrenched malcontent -- a position doomed to sterility.
The article posted above is the eccentric fantasy of an entrenched malcontent
Takes one to know one, I guess. Just kidding, Fr O, but seriously, you use the word "change" univocally. Not all change is betrayal; this is true. But taking something that is already in the deposit of faith and changing it into its opposite, that is heresy. No?
Anyway, the reform is coming now just like it came before: in quiet monasteries, in the words of semi-obscure saints, in the new movements of the Church.
Nicea was accused of heresy in much the same way and for much the same reasons as Vatican II is now so accused by eccentric malcontents. Plus ca change...
We need to recapture the resurrection-dynamic of early Christianity, a revolutionary religion of convulsive change, accused of heresy by the guardians of the status quo. See http://www.religion-online.org/s...tle=2734&
C=2454
Not sure I can vouch for the "orthodoxy" of the last link I posted (for the full text see here http://www.religion-online.org/s...asp?title=2734)
but it seems to be close to the dynamic impact of the resurrection kerygma. Having posted Newman's great sermon on the Cross, I am looking for an equally powerful one on the Resurrection -- can anyone help me? Alas, Newman was not much good on the Resurrection.
http://www.religion-online.org/s....asp?
title=2734
Here you go Padre O'L:
http://www.godspy.com/faith/The-...zo-
Albacete.cfm
I just posted a sermon from Schleiermacher, pre-demythologization but quite beautiful.
Thx, Santiago -- but Schleiermacher says much the same thing, and it's refreshing to have a voice from beyong the RC fold.
I don't hold any brief on the matter of the beatification of Paul VI, but I think what bothers Dr. Von Hildebrand (if I may presume to speak for her) is not just that he didn't declare Humanae Vitae as clearly coming ex cathedra, but that, having written it, he spent the rest of his pontificate not saying anything about it.
For what it's worth, which may be little enough, I had the honor of meeting Dr. Von Hildebrand a few months ago, and talking with her about literature over dinner. The academic malcontents I know are never humble, but she was -- you could not get her to talk about herself. She talked rather about Dietrich von H, or about others she admires. We sat for an hour and laughed and gesticulated and held forth about Shakespeare and Dickens and Manzoni and Cervantes (Dietrich von H read Don Quixote once a year, and knew it by heart). Sure, she is not happy with everything going on in the Church -- I'm not, either. But when you look at her and listen to her you understand that you're in the presence of a woman at peace.
Maybe it's because she and her husband wrote philosophically about the eternal things, while never losing sight of simple, humble, earthy, ordinary piety. How odd it is that in a century whose philosophers increasingly confined themselves to the p's and q's of symbolic logic, Dietrich von Hildebrand was writing about purity, and reverence, and all those things that long ago stirred in the heart of Plato. He never cared what anybody thought of his stature as a philosopher -- Dr. Alice von H seems to have picked up from him that blessed freedom. Yet unlike many high-powered intellects, he never thought himself too smart for the holy water and the rosary beads. She strikes me the same way. It's as if they had these words ever before them: "I praise thee, Father, and give thee glory, for thou hast hidden these things from the wise and the prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes."
I think Paul VI said quite a lot about contraception after HV -- stressing on the one hand that its objective immorality did not mean that the acts of individuals practicing contraception could not be "diminished in guilt, inculpable, or subjectively defensible" (Letter to Cardinal O'Boyle of Washington) -- and on the other stressing ten years after the Encyclical that he still thought it was right. He also spoke rather positively of the debate the encyclical had sparked and did not reject publicly even the most liberal interpretations put forward by episcopal conferences. He was rather discourteous to Irish PM Garrett FitzGerald because of his legalizing of the sale of contraceptives; in fact I think that even Vatican II gives grounds for fighting against such legislation, which I suspect that most Catholics would find today to be an intolerable intrusion on civil liberties.
Malcontents can have merriness and humility, I suppose. Most of you here would consider Hans Kung a malcontent of the left, but he is not lacking in merriment, or even in humility. Surely someone who speaks in such devastatingly negative terms of Vatican II is objectively a malcontent, at odds with the basic charter of the contemporary Church?
Was Hildebrand a Don Quixote, in fact, yearning after a vanished golden age and seeing ogres behind every millwheel? A merry malcontent, in short?
Perhaps our own Realist is best seen as a merry malcontent. In truth, we are all malcontents, like the brigands writhing on either side of Jesus.
Ave Crux, Spes unica.
http://www.karmel.at/ics/edith/s...h/
stein_18.html
A blessed Good Friday, a watchful Holy Saturday, and a joyous Easter to all.
"Spirit," it's gratifying to see you concede that perhaps even entrenched malcontends "can have merriness and humility, I suppose." Perhaps we can return the favor by supposing that even precipitously leftward-leaning, windmill-tilting Irish priests may be merry and humble at times. As to which positions are "doomed to sterility," I think it proper on this Good Friday defer judgment until we meet our Risen Lord.
So...the crisis in the Church is because priests mumbled????
Wow. Does that really sound like the insight of a deep thinker?
Priests mumbled, therefore crisis? No. Thomas Tucker is not reading Dr Von H. correctly: the point she's making, surely, is that the mumbling and irreverence were symptoms of priests' loss of faith. It was the latter which was the problem.
A happy and blessed Easter to everyone.
And, I hasten to add, that I ask that even with sympathy to most of her views. But still...........
Dave,
You noted: "Perhaps our own Realist is best seen as a merry malcontent. In truth, we are all malcontents, like the brigands writhing on either side of Jesus."
This merry malcontent has presented his points of view in an effort to educate not agitate. With this in mind it is time for the two other Capital G's in Life, Golf and Gardening. Have a great Easter envisioning all great Spirits rising to the Spirit State.
The Realist unsubscribes.
Well, then if mumbling thru the Mass was a sign of their increasing secularism, then she really doesn't answer the question- how would changing the Mass again be an antidote to secularism (since it proved not to be one in the first place?)
Realist,
Enjoy the Golf and Gardening. Less agitating than blogging, I hope. 
I don't know about all Great Spirits, but I wish you all the best. 'Grace be with all who love our Lord Jesus Christ with love undying.' (Eph 6:24)
Happy Easter!
'Well, then if mumbling thru the Mass was a sign of their increasing secularism, then she really doesn't answer the question- how would changing the Mass again be an antidote to secularism (since it proved not to be one in the first place?)'
Actually, I think that she does answer the question:
'TLM: I cannot end the interview without asking your reaction to a well-worn canard. There are those critics of the ancient Latin mass who point out that the crisis in the Church developed at a time when the Mass was offered throughout the world. Why should we then think a revival is intrinsic to the solution?
AVH: The devil hates the ancient Mass. He hates it because it is the most perfect reformulation of all the teachings of the Church.'
In other words, the point of restoring the Traditional Mass is not to solve the problem of secularism. The point is to rebuke the devil and to glorify the Lord.
And where is the proof that the "ancient Mass" is a more perfect reformulation of all the teachings of the Church than is the Novus Ordo Mass? Where is the proof that the devil hates the old Mass more than the new Mass? That is just opinion based on nothing, and this all becomes a circular argument.
The "physical resurrection" means that what is sown a physical body is raised a spiritual body. This spiritual body of Christ is present in the Eucharist. I do not believe a la Bultmann that Jesus is risen only in the power of the kerygma (which Bultmann sees as itself an eschatological event). He is present to his church not only in his word but bodily.
Didn't notice that it was Pius XII who acclaimed Dietrich v H as a Doctor -- though of course that was long before he became a malcontent; now Alice is singing of former glories. Didn't know that Ratzinger had written the preface to her life of him; happily this side of Ratzinger seems to have vanished with his elevation to the throne of Peter.
As to the beatification of Paul VI reference, here is what I was referring to:
TLM: Why did Don Villa write these works singling out Paul VI for criticism?
AVH: Don Villa reluctantly decided to publish the books to which I have alluded. But when several bishops pushed for beatification of Paul VI, this priest perceived it as a clarion call to print the information he had gathered through the years. In so doing, he was following the guidelines of a Roman Congregation, informing the faithful that it was their duty as members of the Church to relay to the Congregation any information that might militate against the candidate's qualifications for beatification.
Thomas, I didn't say that AVH answered your question to your satisfaction, just that she answered it. Restoring the ancient Mass is not intended to solve the problem of secularism.
I'm sure that it can be demonstrated theologically that the ancient Mass is "a more perfect reformulation of all the teachings of the Church than is the Novus Ordo Mass" -- I'm just not qualified to take up that task. Maybe someone else here will step up.
As for what the devil hates, I'm willing to bet that he hates the sacrificial emphasis of the ancient Mass.
"the devil" -- why this rigidity in religious representations?
All these words, such as "sacrifice", are products of particular times and spaces and go through complex semantic shifts throughout history.
The theologies of sacrifice are numerous and contrasting. Today we cannot talk about sacrifice without bringing into play the findings of anthropology, which have been accumulating and developing in complexity over two centuries.
Rene Girard's writings are one example of an imaginative rethinking of the atonement -- perhaps one that has dominated too much in recent years --
In any case let's not get hung up on reified, immobilized words, missing the dynamic that they were intended to indicate.
The First Eucharist prayer is obviously LESS complete in its theology than the Fourth. In any case a Eucharistic Prayer is not supposed to be a compendium of theology.
Ok. For (hopefully) the last time:
Here is evidence that the Missal of Pius V is a more fitting vessel, while acknowledging that both are equally valid celebrations of Mass. None of my evidence is based on the English translation, and all of it assumes a right, legal celebration of the Mass.
There are prayers at the foot of the altar -- including proclamations of the unworthiness of BOTH priest and servers.
There are many more fixed elements, if only because there are fewer option, allowing us to become more familiar with them, and therefore more receptive to the graces they impart. The USCCB accepts this argument for a contrary purpose: we should, they aver, retain a defective Gloria because the people are already familiar with it.
At many points during the celebration of Mass the invocation of the saints, IN A FIXED ORDER, is required, not optional.
Several of the fixed passages are biblical texts or strong biblical references: Judica me; Munda cor meum, Lavabo inter innocentes; Quid retribuam; others. In the case of two of these, they are missing completely in the new rite, while the others are significantly reduced.
No doubt someone who has studied the case more than I can make a stronger case for the same end.
Okay. I'll comment on the article. The fact that she believes that there were (and are) diabolical things going on is really creepy. I mean, communists?? It just seems like you need a lot of evidence to support such stuff. It seems to me like a big made-up conspiracy theory. What can a faithful Catholic do? Of course, they say that the best thing the devil can do is convince you that he doesn't exist......
Why, exactly, do you find her comments creepy?
Oh, I don't know, maybe the fact that she's pointing out stuff that doesn't seem true. Like the Freemasons and communists. But I am young, and I really don't know anything about that kind of stuff. Maybe you could enlightnen me? I mean, I'm not against any rite of the Mass or tradition at all (I pray the Rosary), it just seems so unbelievable that these kinds of things could happen. That the "smoke of Satan" could really enter into the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. I didn't think that God would allow such a thing to happen.
Chris- bsically, what you are saying is that the old Mass has more parts than the new Mass. That that makes it "better" is simply a matter of opinion. And the same holds true for the Devil hating it more. If what you are saying were true, an even better mass than the old mass would have even more parts, more Scripture-based prayers, etc.
Andrew:
I happened to ride home on the bus (public transport here is WONDERFUL) across from a gentleman who identified his masonic lineage: his father, grandfather and great grandfather had all been Masons. He simply and quickly added to my invitation by explaining that he himself was not a mason and that the masons, regardless of newscopy to the contrary were vehemently anti-Catholic. It seems entirely possible that people who have little regard for the truth could have lied their way to the priesthood. There is actual evidence that certain people (living and deceased) have actually been identified as masons. The Nazis and the Communists each subscribed to an openly anti-Catholic idea: the Nazis tried to kidnap the pope, and the Communists tried to assassinate him.
Thomas:
No, I'm not saying that more parts equals better, per se. What I mean is that some foods have a higher protein count per serving. Prayers which are completely scriptural were eliminated or watered down (either in the original Latin or in translation or both). I make the argument this way precisely to address the concerns of those who want a more biblical christianity: there was more of Sacred Scripture in the old rite's text.
Father O'Leary:
Your comment about resurrection and sacrifice remind me of the folks who entered into oecumenical dialogue some years ago. The Lutheran delegate said that he didn't doubt the Apostolic Succession, but he wanted to use the expression in a Lutheran sense, not in the sense the Catholic Church has always used the term. If you agree to the reality of something you can not describe or define, in this case two concrete events, how can theology help you?
Just a note on communists. Remember all the denials that there were any communists in the American gov't? That this was all simply wild imaginary speculation of Joe McCarthy? And then when the Soviet files were opened and the Venona communications were decoded and published and we found out there was high-level infiltration of the American gov't up to the level of the Vice President's office?
I'd love to see a study of Soviet infiltration of the Vatican.
In the case of Senator McCarthy, this patriot is now derided as an intolerant scumbag. Does anyone in American ask anymore (or did anyone at the time)whether or not there was substance to his claim?
Since what I have to say is a bit long for a comment, I've posted something at my own blog.
Foaming about "presumption" and "pride" simply because someone disagrees with you is bad manners.
The Church urges us to take seriously the literary genres in which Scripture is composed and the fact that the Gospel writers composed their texts with an eye to the needs of the churches at the time of composition. Reading everything as straight empirical reporting is a literalist positivism at odds with Catholic understanding of Scripture. To label informed theological hermeneutics "Unitarianism" is just more of the same rashness that has made the US Catholic Church a bear garden.
The angelus interpres is a common device of Scriptural narration and is not to be taken as straightforward factual reporting.
http://www.cafepress.com/
britius...ritius.16116924
This "Mary, exterminatrix of heresies" cult is infantile, but perhaps the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith bears some responsibility for it.
"Foaming about "presumption" and "pride" simply because someone disagrees with you is bad manners."
Touche.
Actually, you're quite right. Sorry there. Retracted.
Does anyone in American ask anymore (or did anyone at the time)whether or not there was substance to his claim?
Check out Buckley;s "The Red Hunter."
A few years ago a Vatican monsignor was telling the world that a woman married to a man with AIDS cannot refuse to perform her marital duty and cannot ask him to wear a condom either -- she must just trust in Providence.
Well, this still seems to be what the Vatican wants, to judge from the following: http://news.independent.co.uk/
eu...ticle359435.ece
Can this really be so/
Certainly it can be so. How can life be transmitted (on purpose) by using a condom?
Death is transmitted when women are told that they are bound to have sex with their husbands infected with AIDS. Can this really be what the Church wants?
A thought -- the rise of conservatism worldwide is not a triumph of conservative ideas but of brute anti-intellectualism. Signs of this irrationality: the neocon frenzy and the Iraq war, the Terry Schiavo brouhaha, and now the doctrine that women must have unprotected sex with their AIDS-infected husbands.
Remember the anti-intellectualist currents that led to the rise of Nazism?
Oh, it looks as if the Vatican is not quite as crazy as people thought and that Cardinal Martini was merely a little ahead of them:
THE IRISH TIMES REPORTS:
Vatican may ease stance on use of condoms
The Vatican is preparing a document about the use of condoms by those with Aids at Pope Benedict XVI's request, a Vatican cardinal has said.
"Soon the Vatican will issue a document about the use of condoms by persons who have grave diseases, starting with Aids," Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, who is in charge of the Vatican's health care ministry, was quoted as telling Rome daily newspaper La Repubblica.
"My department is carefully studying it, along with scientists and theologians entrusted with drawing up a document about the subject that will soon be made known," the Mexican cardinal said.
The Vatican opposes the use of condoms as part of its overall teaching against contraception and advocates sexual abstinence as the best way to combat the spread of the HIV virus that causes Aids.
Last week, retired Milan Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, a one-time papal contender, said in comments published in Italian newsweekly L'Espresso that condoms were the "lesser evil" in combating the spread of Aids.
Asked if he shared Cardinal Martini's idea about condoms, Cardinal Lozano Barragan said: "It is a very difficult and delicate subject which warrants prudence."
Vatican May approve Birth Control (196
New Pope may approve ordination of women (2004)
Pope John to reveal the third secret (1959)
Dewey beat Truman 1948
TLM:
"There are those critics of the ancient Latin mass who point out that the crisis in the Church developed at a time when the Mass was offered throughout the world"
I was unaware of any crisis at the time.
If there was one: what did it amount to?
Pope condemns all forms of taking interest on money -- 1577. Holy Office declares slavery compatible with natural and divine law -- 1866. Pope recommends torture short of amputation or loss or life -- 1256.
Those news reports came out after the decision was made, not before.
Commenting by HaloScan
