"Hans Küng very sad" - OR: "Vatican III: yeah, I'd like to see that!"
This story in Cathnews is reporting that in 2007 there were 4,946 bishops in the Catholic Church. I guess that means that there must be very close to 5000 now?
It kind of makes one wonder how they would ever have a "Vatican III"... It would probably require some radical remodeling of the length of the nave in St Peter's, not to mention a very large increase in the number of hotels near the Vatican...
Of course, we remember that the calls for a "Vatican III" surfaced within a few years of the close of Vatican II from those convinced that Vatican II did not go far enough (see this extract from Time Magazine in November 1968 for proof).
Of course, one of the loudest exponents of these ideas then was one Father Hans Küng. As his Wikipedia page proclaims, Fr Küng "remains a Catholic priest in good standing" in the Catholic Church. But things have certainly not gone his way, and he knows it.
The same Cathnews article reports that Fr Küng is "very sad" over "the direction the current Church leadership was taking".
What do you think Fr Küng might mean by that? What "direction"?
I mean, there are a lot of people on this blog - Catholics and non-Catholics who, far from wanting a Vatican III, bemoan the effects of Vatican II. They say that ever since Vatican II things have been getting worse and worse in the Church as the "liberals" are taking over.
But consider this:
1) It is evident that the real downward turn in the Catholic Church took place almost immediately after the Council, at which time those whose hopes for change in the Church had not been sufficiently realised were already calling for a Third Vatican Council and already acting as if they had its decrees in their hands as the authorisation for their "reforms".
2) Things stayed at a low point for a while - also depressed by the negative reaction to Pope Paul VI's decision re Humanae Vitae, but the Pontificate of John Paul II revived the Church's confidence once again in the '80's and '90's, and so now we get a "direction" which is now being continued by Benedict XVI; a "direction" which is faithful to the all the Ecumenical Councils of the Church but decidely NOT in the direction of the Conciliarist's long-dreamed-of "Vatican III".
Hence, Fr Küng is "very sad". And I would argue that if Fr Küng is "very sad" about "the direction the current Church leadership is taking", that is good news for the rest of us: the "current Church leadership" is taking us in the right direction.
Isn't that right, Mr Current Church Leadership?
It kind of makes one wonder how they would ever have a "Vatican III"... It would probably require some radical remodeling of the length of the nave in St Peter's, not to mention a very large increase in the number of hotels near the Vatican...
Of course, we remember that the calls for a "Vatican III" surfaced within a few years of the close of Vatican II from those convinced that Vatican II did not go far enough (see this extract from Time Magazine in November 1968 for proof).
Of course, one of the loudest exponents of these ideas then was one Father Hans Küng. As his Wikipedia page proclaims, Fr Küng "remains a Catholic priest in good standing" in the Catholic Church. But things have certainly not gone his way, and he knows it.
The same Cathnews article reports that Fr Küng is "very sad" over "the direction the current Church leadership was taking".
What do you think Fr Küng might mean by that? What "direction"?
I mean, there are a lot of people on this blog - Catholics and non-Catholics who, far from wanting a Vatican III, bemoan the effects of Vatican II. They say that ever since Vatican II things have been getting worse and worse in the Church as the "liberals" are taking over.
But consider this:
1) It is evident that the real downward turn in the Catholic Church took place almost immediately after the Council, at which time those whose hopes for change in the Church had not been sufficiently realised were already calling for a Third Vatican Council and already acting as if they had its decrees in their hands as the authorisation for their "reforms".
2) Things stayed at a low point for a while - also depressed by the negative reaction to Pope Paul VI's decision re Humanae Vitae, but the Pontificate of John Paul II revived the Church's confidence once again in the '80's and '90's, and so now we get a "direction" which is now being continued by Benedict XVI; a "direction" which is faithful to the all the Ecumenical Councils of the Church but decidely NOT in the direction of the Conciliarist's long-dreamed-of "Vatican III".
Hence, Fr Küng is "very sad". And I would argue that if Fr Küng is "very sad" about "the direction the current Church leadership is taking", that is good news for the rest of us: the "current Church leadership" is taking us in the right direction.
Isn't that right, Mr Current Church Leadership?
posted by Schütz @ 2:43 pm
39 Comments
.JPG)
39 Comments:
Best Papal Photograph Prize!
nocti: Something which can be said of horses.
So the liberal wing of Catholic dissent thinks the conservative wing of Catholic dissent hasn't gone far enough.
Maybe the Catholic Church is timeless after all. Looks like it's pretty well stuck in the 1960s. No matter which side wins.
Kiran, I think someone was trying to explain PE's ecclesiology to him when that picture was taken!
1) It is evident that ...
Is it? I wish I could find the reference now but I can't. Anyhow it showed, in graphical form, a sustained decline since around 1900 with a couple of spikes for the world wars.
... the real downward turn in the Catholic Church took place almost immediately after the Council...
Again, evidence? Are you talking world-wide trends, trends in the developed/developing world?
... at which time those whose hopes for change in the Church had not been sufficiently realised were already calling for a Third Vatican Council and already acting as if they had its decrees in their hands as the authorisation for their "reforms".
Really? Is this just another, self-serving, sweeping generalisation that can't be proved or disproved or can you add some substance?
2) Things stayed at a low point for a while - also depressed by the negative reaction to Pope Paul VI's decision re Humanae Vitae, but the Pontificate of John Paul II revived the Church's confidence once again in the '80's and '90's, and so now we get a "direction" which is now being continued by Benedict XVI; a "direction" which is faithful to the all the Ecumenical Councils of the Church but decidely NOT in the direction of the Conciliarist's long-dreamed-of "Vatican III".
Given that numbers are a theme of this post, how have numbers been affected by the new 'confidence' and 'direction'? Given that this 'direction' presumably started with PJPII's pontificate (1978), you'd think that's long enough to draw some conclusions about numbers that are a little safer than 'the real downward turn in the Catholic Church took place almost immediately after the Council'.
chous: a choir with real talent (no 'arse')
Tony said: Given that numbers are a theme of this post
Yes, I was talking about "numbers" of bishops, but oddly enough, Tony, in talking about "directions", I was NOT talking about numbers at all. You have read that into what I have written - maybe its your problem and not mine?
I was talking about the doctrinal NOT numerical decline, and the evidence I offer is the Time Magazine article from 1968 to which I refer. Every liberal error can be found represented in full bloom in that article written just three years after the Council, AND you can find in it, word for word, a call for a "Vatican III". You can even find certain characters mentioned in that article who are STILL around today making the same noises!
No, my friend, I was talking about the doctrinal "direction", not the direction of the numbers graph.
I said: ... at which time those whose hopes for change in the Church had not been sufficiently realised were already calling for a Third Vatican Council and already acting as if they had its decrees in their hands as the authorisation for their "reforms".
And Tony said: Really? Is this just another, self-serving, sweeping generalisation that can't be proved or disproved or can you add some substance?
Ah, well there you have me with my pants down. Yes, it was "another, self-seriving, sweeping generalisation" - I am prone to those sometimes - although I think again the Times Magazine article is not bad in the evidence stakes.
Speaking of still around to-day making the same noises:
It was Concilium that since the days of the Council -- among whose founders was Hans Kueng -- that published scholarly articles of the thought behind the Council.
It was later (1972) that Communio -- among whose founders was Joseph Ratzinger, and theologians censured by the Catholic Church such as Urs von Balthasar and de Lubac -- was founded to put the brakes on.
Conservative dissent, liberal dissent, it's all dissent. Since Vatican II, the former is called "Catholicism" and the later is still "dissent".
The victors get to write the history. Perhaps, when the picture was taken, he was trying to hide the egg on his face.
Yes, I was talking about "numbers" of bishops, but oddly enough, Tony, in talking about "directions", I was NOT talking about numbers at all. You have read that into what I have written - maybe its your problem and not mine?
A mistake is not a problem (even for 'dense' folk like me!), it's an opportunity to learn!
I was talking about the doctrinal NOT numerical decline, and the evidence I offer is the Time Magazine article from 1968 to which I refer.
You're offering a 'Time Magazine article' as evidence of 'doctrinal decline'??!!
Is this the same 'blogster' who is otherwise very cautious about secular media?
Every liberal error can be found represented in full bloom in that article written just three years after the Council, AND you can find in it, word for word, a call for a "Vatican III".
And because Time says so that constitutes evidence of 'doctinal decline'. You're running a bit thin there David!
You can even find certain characters mentioned in that article who are STILL around today making the same noises!
PJPII made the same noises for near-to 3 decades and, I'm confident that there were plenty of prominent people of all stripes making the 'same noises' over a long period. So what?
If they were people you agreed with, would the longevity of their stated opinions -- 'noises' is so 'journalese' -- be a positive or a negative?
... although I think again the Times Magazine article is not bad in the evidence stakes.
The article is just a bunch of opinions. It provides no evidence of a 'decline'.
You're just an agent of division David. You love the 'conservative/liberal' tensions and look for any opportunity to play the political finger-pointing game.
I'm often amazed that someone who is so interested in inter-denominational unity is such a unabashed partisan in the terms of unity among Catholics!
But, as you say my friend, I'm a little dense.
:-p
sionc: jumbled noises
You're just an agent of division David. You love the 'conservative/liberal' tensions and look for any opportunity to play the political finger-pointing game.
I'm often amazed that someone who is so interested in inter-denominational unity is such a unabashed partisan in the terms of unity among Catholics!
What Tony said.
David:
I hope you are able to realise your wish to visit The Vatican, et al.
It is a wonderous Palace, filled with remarkable treasures. We were staggered at the breadth of art and artifacts ..even including a collection from our Aboriginal people. Catholics must be the most industrious Collectors ..or the greatest of Givers.
Tell your wife to look out for the Swiss Guards -they're cute!
You're just an agent of division David.
Now that IS below the belt, old chap.
You love the 'conservative/liberal' tensions and look for any opportunity to play the political finger-pointing game.
Ah, you read me so wrong.
The disunity among Christians in general, and the inner disunity in the Catholic Church in particular, is my greatest grief.
I have called this blog "Sentire cum Ecclesia", because I am convinced that, as Paul says, "the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15). As the body of Christ, all members of the Church belong to one another and should work in harmony with one another for the service of the world.
I believe that the only true unity, the only unity worth its name, is unity in Love and Truth.
And true unity will only come from speaking the truth in love. (Eph 4:15).
I do not believe in unity based on convenience, compromise, or, worse yet, on lies, fictions or flatteries.
True unity will be never be fostered by papering over the cracks, by avoiding talking about the obvious, or by anything other than the plain truth - spoken in love.
The fact that I have nailed my colours to the mast and declared that I wish to "think with the Church" has annoyed a lot of people who do not wish to "think with the Church" - on both sides of the ecclesio-political spectrum.
But, again, I am convinced that the only way there can ever be unity among Christians is for all who believe in Christ to willingly and lovingly to submit themselves to his Lordship, to loving service of one another, and to the voice and teaching of his Holy Church.
What I am speaking of, and what causes such offense to so many readers of this blog, is that I am not in fact a "conservative". (I don't mind the label - it just doesn't fit me). I do not really give two figs whether a theological opinion is "conservative" or "liberal".
My one and only concern (and here PE and Brian Coyne are spot on about me) is to "think with the Church". In order to live under Christ, in unity with all his brothers and sisters, I have submitted myself heart mind and soul to his Church.
You find this submission offensive, and you mistake it for theological conservatism (another mistake - another chance to learn).
Contrawise, I am offended by the unwillingness of others who call themselves Catholics to live in this same submission that they owe to the Church. Yes, I have been guilty of labelling such people "liberals". Please forgive me. This is quite wrong. They would much more accurately be called "dissenters".
It is dissent from lawful and true authority that has always been and will always be, from the time of the apostolic church to the day our Lord returns, the cause of disunity among Christians.
I hate disunity, and thus I hate dissent. I love unity, and thus I love lawful authority and loyal submission.
So, I "point the finger" at dissent where it appears because it is always and everywhere divisive and I hate division. I do not "love" these tensions. I do not believe it is a "game".
It is deadly serious. All baptised Christians are my brothers and sisters in Christ, whom I love. I do not enjoy not being able to celebrate the Lord's Supper with them all at the same table. It is my dearest wish that this might be so. Here the divisions between us reach EVEN into my own family - you cannot think I "love" this? Or think that it is a "game"?
I will always speak the truth as I see - assuring each of you who visit my blog of my love for you (bit gushy but true, OK?). If I use "labels" it is because they need to be used, just as I think the label "spade" is a very apt label to use for a spade. I speak plainly. This is no game.
Dissent is a dagger-blow to the heart of the Church. I have no joy in it, nor in exposing it. It is a cause for shame and dishonour - as Joshua has said elsewhere - that it even exists in the Church. But turning a blind eye won't heal this wound. (cf. St Mary's South Brisbane).
Forget "conservative/liberal". It is dissent that breeds disunity. It is thinking with the Church that leads to unity and harmony under Christ. I love unity in Christ. I love harmony in the Church. That's why I do the job I do.
Bravo, David, bravo!
Now that IS below the belt, old chap.
A little on the robust side David, but you can be pretty plain speaking yourself ...
I believe that the only true unity, the only unity worth its name, is unity in Love and Truth.
And true unity will only come from speaking the truth in love. (Eph 4:15).
Fair suck of the sauce bottle David, the contempt was palpable.
I do not believe in unity based on convenience, compromise, or, worse yet, on lies, fictions or flatteries.
You'll have noticed that I'm not much into flattery either!
True unity will be never be fostered by papering over the cracks, by avoiding talking about the obvious, or by anything other than the plain truth - spoken in love.
And, as an observer of your musings for sometime now, I think your 'plain truth' is often divisive.
The fact that I have nailed my colours to the mast and declared that I wish to "think with the Church" has annoyed a lot of people who do not wish to "think with the Church" - on both sides of the ecclesio-political spectrum.
I'm not sure how to respond to that, should I congratulate you?
My one and only concern (and here PE and Brian Coyne are spot on about me) is to "think with the Church". In order to live under Christ, in unity with all his brothers and sisters, I have submitted myself heart mind and soul to his Church.
Well sort of. You are also not backward in coming forward about negative opinions about members of that church. If they don't fit your criteria of 'submission'.
What comes across to me, time and time again, is arrogance. You don't try to understand views that don't fit your version of church. You box them up -- in a way that any journalist would be proud -- and then demolish them. There's no real learning or challenging in setting up straw men and tearing them down. It's money for old rope.
You find this submission offensive, and you mistake it for theological conservatism (another mistake - another chance to learn).
No it's your turn to learn, it's not the submission that I find offensive, its more the arrogance and the unwillingness to really understand the POV of those you disagree with.
Contrawise, I am offended by the unwillingness of others who call themselves Catholics to live in this same submission that they owe to the Church.
I read this as 'they' should be like 'me'.
Yes, I have been guilty of labelling such people "liberals". Please forgive me. This is quite wrong. They would much more accurately be called "dissenters".
Of course!
Such a label is very much the language of division. 'They' are the dissenters and, of course, 'we're' right.
It is dissent from lawful and true authority that has always been and will always be, from the time of the apostolic church to the day our Lord returns, the cause of disunity among Christians.
And disagreement. Always been there, always will be there. It's part of being in a dynamic organisation. Sometimes today's 'dissenters' (or pick from the plethora of epithets) are tomorrow's prophets.
I hate disunity, and thus I hate dissent. I love unity, and thus I love lawful authority and loyal submission.
Similarly I hate disunity and thus I hate arrogance.
So, I "point the finger" at dissent where it appears because it is always and everywhere divisive and I hate division. I do not "love" these tensions. I do not believe it is a "game".
For goodness sake David, re-read your post. It was, what's known in the trade as a 'beat up'.
It is deadly serious. All baptised Christians are my brothers and sisters in Christ, whom I love. I do not enjoy not being able to celebrate the Lord's Supper with them all at the same table. It is my dearest wish that this might be so. Here the divisions between us reach EVEN into my own family - you cannot think I "love" this? Or think that it is a "game"?
That's why it suprises me how you come across at times.
I will always speak the truth as I see - assuring each of you who visit my blog of my love for you (bit gushy but true, OK?). If I use "labels" it is because they need to be used, just as I think the label "spade" is a very apt label to use for a spade. I speak plainly. This is no game.
So do I. I'm speaking plainly how you come across at times.
Dissent is a dagger-blow to the heart of the Church.
Dissent is part of how the church grows. The church needs it's extremes to enliven the centre.
I have no joy in it, nor in exposing it. It is a cause for shame and dishonour - as Joshua has said elsewhere - that it even exists in the Church. But turning a blind eye won't heal this wound. (cf. St Mary's South Brisbane).
There you go! You are implying that a Bishop has 'turned a blind eye'. If that's not 'dissent', what is?
Forget "conservative/liberal". It is dissent that breeds disunity. It is thinking with the Church that leads to unity and harmony under Christ. I love unity in Christ. I love harmony in the Church. That's why I do the job I do.
There are different ways of contributing to disunity.
lider: hatmaker
The Catholic Church no longer thinks with the Catholic Church.
That's my point here, not to make you Lutheran again or make any one else Lutheran.
This is what puts me on the same page with Tony and Brian Coyne et al -- not that I agree with their positions, because I don't, but they do understand dissent and its role in a community.
Or at least they understand themselves and their role in their community honestly.
So we have a conservative form of dissent from Catholicism which now runs the Catholic Church. Happened in just the way Tony describes. But the conservative dissenters call it "development of doctrine" or some such Romantic Newmanian fiction.
They don't see it as dissent at all. They see it as the next step, "moving on", "a different place" to borrow two of your own phrases for it, aggioramento or ressourcement to borrow two nouvelle theologie phrases for it. Dissent in a conservative form has become orthodoxy.
The dissenters know that quite well. In these terms, what they are saying is, now that you have won the power, why do you exclude the rest of dissent? You refuse to allow anyone else into the process by which you yourselves came to be and came to prevail.
There is also the unfortunate specter of Catholic institutions of higher learning and their lack of fidelity to Rome. They have tremendous influence on the younger generation.
We have a very well known Jesuit institution in Northeast Ohio. Even in the late 60's it was still "orthodox" in its Catholic idenitity. They have a "Cardinal Suenens" center -- does that ring any bells?
The head of their theology department was quoted in a newspaper article as saying oh what's wrong with believing that God revealed himself to Joseph Smith through those golden tablets.
It's well known how few Catholic universities have signed on to Ex Corde Ecclesiae. A distinct failure on the part of the Vatican to persuade and an ongoing sign of the dissent of American (and European) Catholic institutions.
Since Herr Schutz was called out on having based his historical statements about dissent on a New York Times article, I thought I would share something from Avery Dulles' book , "The Reshaping of Catholicism" (Page 12 and 13)
"Furthermore, the council documents themselves did not represent a clear victory of the liberal side. In every decree of Vatican II the conservative had succeeded in safeguarding their own special concerns. For example, the Declaration on Religious Freedom deliberately leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the One Church of Christ.(Then follow several other examples.)
Confronted by these facts, the liberal interpreters of the council came to admit the presence of strongly hierarchical and conservative statements in the decrees of Vatican II. George Lindbeck, for example, addressed this problem in the introduction to his "The Future of Roman Catholic Theology." (pub 1970). After acknowledging the existence of compromises and deliberate ambiguities in the council documents, he proposed as the proper hermeneutical procedure that the new theological emphases be regarded as the most significant and that the old be understood in terms of the new, rather than vice versa. In this way he found it posible to subordinate many certain traditional teachings of Vatican II as incidental concessions to the conservative minority rather than central or emphatic affirmations. "
Cardinal Dulles' book is definitely worth reading on this subject.
Susan Peterson
That Time article is sooo dated. I remember 1968 well.
I also remember George Lindbeck, the Yale Lutheran who traveled widely in ecumenical circles.
If the council documents did not represent a "clear victory" of the liberal side, a victory there was nonetheless.
It lives on more at the parish/chancery level than at the Vatican.
The WRITTEN words of the council represent the teaching of the Catholic Church. Both the ones the liberals like, and the ones that they don't, which were "compromises" with the conservatives. The Holy Spirit did not choose only one group to speak through, but worked through human beings who themselves had inadequate or limited understanding, to make sure the council spoke the truth.
That is what a Catholic faith in the authority of ecumenical councils teaches us.
If the council has been misinterpreted, and deliberately misinterpreted, at the parish/chancery level, that is unfortunate, but not irreversable. I seem to remember that much of the church was once Arian, but trinitarian orthodoxy won out. Last Sunday the Eastern Catholic Church celebrated the "Sunday of Orthodoxy" in memory of the seventh ecumenical council which routed the iconoclasts from the Church. (There is a procession around the church with icons.)
A little chronological perspective is useful in these matters.
Susan Peterson
"Obviously" - as BXVI has had to point out, more's the pity, owing to man's wilful blindness - the only way to read the Council documents is with a hermeneutic of continuity. If they are not, one is doing exactly what PE damns the whole Church with doing: substituting a new religion for an old, thereby proving both to be false.
What is this, the Oracle of Delphi?
Go therefore, engage in a dialogue of cultures with all nations, baptising them, afte you decide what baptising means, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, and teach them to observe all that I have commanded you, as you doctrinally develop it over time, carefully through compromise and deliberate ambiguity crafting highly nuanced documents of official teachings to appease all parties, which then will not be clear in themselves but only be understood through an interpretive process you will control in which continuity will be assumed to prove it is there.
The full text of the Great Commission revealed!
Yeah, Susan, if only the Holy Spirit would make it possible for converts like us (er, in my case, ex-convert) to find a parish we could stick with that lives the authentic Catholic faith. One shouldn't have to leave a Roman Rite parish for an Eastern one.
Hans Kung was recommended reading in the theological course at Queensland university in the late 60s'. at that time the most radical theological faculty in the most conservative state of Australia.(with the Lutheran Joh bjelke-Petersen as premier-don't you worry about that!!).My brother who was studying to become a Church of Christ minister studied at that Faculty and incessantly quoted Kung for about 3 years. I can remember him making a quote from Kung about Vatican II needing to be followed up by another Church Council.Hindsight is a great thing.
I said: Dissent is a dagger-blow to the heart of the Church.
Tony said: Dissent is part of how the church grows.
I guess that sums up the difference between you and me, Tony. Given that, I don't think I have anything to apologise for.
And Susan,
Thanks for the reference to Dulles. It was a "Time" magazine article that I included here on my blog a year or so ago, not a NYT article. The article is an accurate reflection of what was going on in 1968 - a real insight, like reading an old newspaper. Christine is right, it is "sooooo dated" - and yet, eerily familiar...
PE, I think that the dichotomizing of the divide as being between the conservative dissenters and the liberal dissenters is in your head.
De Lubac was never a dissenter, although he made some quite quaint choices in the company he kept. He was among the critics of the extreme elements at the Second Vatican Council at the time, as also was the then Fr. Ratzinger.
The problems in the Church post the Second Vatican Council already existed in the Church prior to the Council. What happened at the Council just lead to their exacerbation. In many ways, I simply wish the Council hadn't happened. That said, the Council on its own claim was not dogmatic. So, whatever it said and what it means is of concern certainly, but not crucial. There is nothing the matter with having a Council or a Pope that went off track, so long as they do not proclaim an inauthentic dogma. The Second Vatican Council is not dogmatic. So, by definition, it cannot teach inauthentic dogma.
That does not change the fact that the Church is the Church, and that diligent quest within the Church is the only way to the fullness of the truth - the Truth. If anyone can come up with a different way of getting there, I'd like to know. I don't think it possible per Christ's promise.
syncess: to sin excessively by synthesis.
For God's sake, the whole point of liturgical reform was to accomplish in a non-dogmatic way what would take a long time and perhaps not be possible through dogmatics.
It's the dark side of lex orandi lex credendi.
If you don't think the liturgical "reformers" didn't know that, you missed the party.
The novus ordo was crafted as the companion piece to the new theology in the classroom. The latter reaches a few, the former changes a church.
It's how you have a dogmatic revolution while being "pastoral".
They knew exactly what they were doing.
I guess that sums up the difference between you and me, Tony. Given that, I don't think I have anything to apologise for.
I wasn't actually asking for an apology.
However, it may help you to understand why I find some of your writing (not you, I hasten to clarify!) divisive and arrogant.
If you think that using a description of 'dissent' is part of your 'loving' approach, then you need to check with those whom you thus describe.
There is a world of difference between, 'I strongly disagree with you for these reasons' and 'you are a dissenter'.
One approach leaves dialogue open, the other pretty much closes it.
You set yourself up as an arbiter of dissent and, with all due respect, you're not qualified to do that.
Perhaps, getting back to your original post, you'd care to explain how it contributes to unity and understanding?
sonator: male-child of an upper-house member.
PE, You're quite right that the Novus Ordo, abused to propagate error, has been all too effective - but "rightly used" (e.g. at the Brompton Oratory) it is fine, though not as fine as the Traditional Mass. It was the current Pope, I think, who opined that the difference between the old and new missals when both are celebrated in a solemn fashion is not so great as that between the solemn celebration of the new missal - and its typical parish celebration. This is why a reform-of-the-reform is vital:
* worship ad orientem;
* no more lay readers (I still have no idea where this curious innovation came from: they ought be instituted lectors);
* kneeling communion;
* a return to the Gregorian propers.
All this is in fact normative according to the new missal - but just try finding it!
"Doing really must stop when we come to the heart of the matter: prayer (the oratio). It must be plainly evident that prayer (the oratio) is the heart of the matter, but that it is important precisely because it provides a space for the action (actio) of God. Anyone who grasps this will easily see that it is not now a matter of looking at or toward the priest, but of looking together toward the Lord and going out to meet him."
Orientation is critical.
Strangely, no mention is made of worship ad orientem also inplicitly requiring an Easterly orientation.
As for Kneeling communion, this is far too often ignored.
At a Requiem recently, several elderly mourners remained standing, and one made no attempt to get out of her chair.
The author quoted above clearly didn't go far enough in defining the essence of Worthy Reception.
You love the 'conservative/liberal' tensions and look for any opportunity to play the political finger-pointing game.
Tosh! This is a blog and its author is clearly a man of intelligence. As are all the commenters, I might add. What that means is that delicate subjects will be touched on from time to time.
Besides, I thought diversity was good in the Brave New World.
If David "loves" the liberal/conservative tensions, it's only in the sense of ideas, I'm sure. Otherwise, I'm sure it's a matter of deep grief to him.
I will always speak the truth as I see - assuring each of you who visit my blog of my love for you (bit gushy but true, OK?).
Thankyou, David, and I'm sure many of us (hopefully all) appreciate your true love for us.
If I use "labels" it is because they need to be used, just as I think the label "spade" is a very apt label to use for a spade. I speak plainly. This is no game.
All words are "labels" if you think about it. I don't think we could easily live without words.
It is a cause for shame and dishonour - as Joshua has said elsewhere - that it even exists in the Church.
Too sad. Too true.
What comes across to me, time and time again, is arrogance. You don't try to understand views that don't fit your version of church. You box them up -- in a way that any journalist would be proud -- and then demolish them. There's no real learning or challenging in setting up straw men and tearing them down. It's money for old rope.
Okay, Tony, perhaps you could give us a concrete example of something you believe, which David and I etc do not and which we would believe is against Church teaching (and therefore not actually open to debate) and we'll see how well we can have a discussion about that and not be arrogant about it. If you think we're being arrogant, just say so and we'll look at the language being used to see if there's really any cause for alarm, and if there is, how we can improve. Let's see if we cn understand your POV, Tony.
If you want to have a go, choose your topic. I will try not to be snarky (could be difficult).
Joshua, I agree wholeheartedly about the Reform of the Reform.
but "rightly used" (e.g. at the Brompton Oratory) it is fine, though not as fine as the Traditional Mass.
Can you enlarge on this? I am under the impression (from someone who has studied this more than I have) that there is not that big a difference between the two in Latin.
Reform of the reform?
More Roman hogwash. This time to cover up that the "reform" was no reform at all, not in its excesses, but in its substance.
Reading the novus ordo in Latin was the last step in my exit from the Roman church, that such a pure pile of unadulterated crap should have been put in place of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass of Catholic belief and practice.
Reading the Novus Ordo in Latin, and comparing with the TLM, was an important stage in my coming to orthodox understanding.
PE, I have no problem with admitting the Reform was a disaster. But your assertions are ultimately just that - assertions. You have dug yourself into a hole, and you loudly proclaim that no one can get you out of it because they are all in it with you. But there is no reason why what was done in a hurry cannot be reversed effectively. I would say that it is simply consequent upon belief in a good God who keeps His promises
Bungee jumping Judas, I did not say the Reform was a disaster, I said the Reform was no Reform at all, hence the disaster.
The only thing worse than say a liturgical dance Mass at the next Call To Action shindig is a novus ordo mass by the book -- if you're looking for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Ok. And whatever service you are attending now is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? Great deduction!
Kiran, if you think I attend Lutheran Divine Services now because I have "deduced" that they are truly the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, you have not understood anything of what I have said re why I rejected as a Catholic the novus ordo as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass or what I years later came to believe.
You would do better to follow the example of Dr Tighe and argue that neither history nor the church knows anything of a "catholic church" other than the Catholic Church or a "mass" other than the Mass prior to the Reformation.
That is at least an argument not based on not understanding what the issues even are.
You can't blame me, PE. Very little of what you say is intelligible.
In reaction to my saying that excesses of liturgical reform are not the problem, but rather that the novus ordo is false to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass of Catholic understanding, you sarcastically responded by saying oh right and whatever services I attend now are the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
You would not have to have understood a word I have ever said -- which boils down to, I rejected Vatican II "Catholicism" when I was a Catholic because it is not Catholic, not because I thought something else was true -- to know that no-one ever anywhere attended "whatever service", which in my case being Lutheran would be a Lutheran Divine Service, which we also call mass, thinking here is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass of Catholic understanding.
And I merely say that your premises and conclusions, both as to validity and invalidity are mismatched.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home