Thursday, 31 July 2014

It must be tough in the modern Church



A friend told me recently that she had become a parish "greeter" and, as well as making me feel distinctly nauseous, this news also made me think that the poor old modernists have much to suffer these days.

It was so much less demanding pre Vatican II, you just went to Mass and got on with your prayers, you didn't have to worry about the many duties and demands that have accumulated post 1970.

For a start, as a lay person you did not have to think twice about arriving at church and entering your pew; the holy water fonts would be full and ready for hands to be dipped in prior to a blessing and the tabernacle would be positioned centre back of the Sanctuary and all you had to do was genuflect, not bob or curtsey or bow.

We did not have "greeters" then. 

Before 1970 all Catholics had a mature disposition that enabled them to arrive at the church and make the hazardous journey to the pew without some leering loon stuffing a parish newsletter in their hands.

And the choirs today have a heavy burden to carry. 
How they cope with all those descants and neumes when singing 'Shine, Jesus shine' is beyond me.

These days altar servers also have to focus very hard to learn English and then walk in a semi straight line to the sanctuary before repeating the process in reverse when Mass is finished; so demanding, such a challenge.

As for Extraordinary Ministers it seems to me that the only occasion that they are not required is at an Extraordinary Mass - curiouser and curiouser.

Spare a thought. also, for the poor parish priest. 

Pre Vatican II they just concentrated on giving a sermon based on the teachings of Christ whereas, today, they have to have completed a module on the art of being a stand up comedian before they finish Year One of their Seminary Studies.

For my part I shall remain firmly planted in the traditional Church, free from greeters, liturgists, extraordinary ministers and wise cracking priests.

It's so much easier in Latin!



108 comments:

  1. Hear, hear.

    Ian in England

    ReplyDelete
  2. . . . "Leering Loon" . . . is that one of the new Minor Orders ?

    ReplyDelete
  3. i couldn't agree more richard.what a modernist shower of hanclappers and jaded huggers from the 68 ers revolution-oh and they have got their man in at the top as well.last sunday i went to a sspx mass and not a tree hugger in sight!the latin rite for me -anyday.our lady of fatima pray for us. god bless .philip johnson.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You know what I think of all that "stuff" Richard....HaHa.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Have you read the Pope's new materialist, Buddhist-like, amoral 10 commandments?!!! So much more agreeable and non-judgmental than those out-of-date 4000 year old one . . .
    And still not a peep from cardinals, bishops . . .

    Lord have mercy. Help us stay faithful and true to Your Commandments.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lynda, having vented your outrage at the Pope's 'amoral' Buddhist-like commandments, you might focus your protest on Jesus Christ who reduced all the Commandments and the teaching of the Prophets to one mandate: "So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the Law and the prophets." (Mt 7: 12).

      Notice, Jesus does not even mention God in this.

      Delete
    2. Are you a new age priest, David? 'cause I think I've heard this sermon before. Whatever, would that priests and Catholics simply bowed to their betters (definitely not post concilliar 'popes' and their team-judas) and employed the Sunday sermons of St Alphonsus Ligouri:

      http://christorchaos.com/?q=content/giving-us-what-2014

      But then that would utterly prevent them from teaching what John Vennari recently called 'viscious non-judgementalism'.

      http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page96/radical_synod.html (the wise Catholic should beware the October Synod as Ceasar should the ides of March).

      Delete
    3. p.s. my aboveclumsy separationg of 'priests and Catholic', in no way is meant to imply that priests are not Catholic or the Catholics are not priests, merely that most Catholics are not Catholic.

      Delete
    4. Viterbo, from your stream of consciousness, free association and confused mind, one might suggest you are simply eccentric and somewhat lost.
      However, Viterbo, your condescending and contemptuous vilification of Vatican II, post conciliar 'popes' and their team-judas remarks plus the references to Venari and then to that lunatic at Christ-chaos proves beyond any doubt that you are heterodox in the extreme form. You are a schismatic and perhaps just as much estranged from Catholic Church as when the unfortunate Lefebvre died outside it.
      You and your little mates like Jacobi are not doing much at all for the Kingdom of God.
      But perhaps it is not religion, faith, Catholicism or God that are the issue here but very deep seated pathologies which simply manipulate the above and use them to mask a multitude of neuroses and psychoses.

      Delete
    5. 'your condescending and contemptuous vilification of Vatican II, post conciliar 'popes' and their team-judas remarks plus the references to Venari and then to that lunatic at Christ-chaos proves beyond any doubt that you are heterodox in the extreme form. You are a schismatic and perhaps just as much estranged from Catholic Church as when the unfortunate Lefebvre died outside it.'

      All of what you have said is false by the way. Vatican II is not dogmatic except for it's reiterations. Pope's John XXIII, Paul VI and Benedict have explicitly stated it's non-bindng pastorial nature. You should also take the time to study the case of Archbishop Lefebvre to actually note that excommunication of Him and the Bishops are invalid. Finally, you will find many that including Cardinal Hoyos who quite clearly state, along with Benedict that they are not schismatic.

      You sir, are committing slander, best to get yourself to a confessional immediately.

      Delete
    6. Viterbo's personal approbation of the sede-vacantist Christchaos, his churlish rejection of Vatican II and the Popes who affirmed that that Ecumenical Council subsumes all previous Council in it mark him out as an ignorant heterodox echo boy for the foolish and the misguided. His mates like Jacobi and the sspx ululator Philip Johnson etc are no different.

      Your support for him and his statements indicates that you too are schismatic just as Lefebrve was who, in his arrogance and blindness, chose to die outside the Church.
      Is there some sort of crazy cult thing going on here? You're pretty well all scratching one another's backs and singing the same song!

      Delete
    7. Viterbo is a schismatic based on his Sedevacantist position he identified himself as in an earlier debate.

      I do not in anyway support Viterbo except on his criticisms of Vatican II and the errors that have been promoted by recent Popes which run contrary to the Traditional Teachings of the Catholic Church laid down by the past Ecumenical Councils and prior Popes.

      Unlike you, I have the whole Church behind the argument. You do not. You have not replied to the statements that have been made which contradict you, but you reply with slurs, slanders and insults.

      Get yourself to confession immediately.

      Delete
    8. Since the chest thumping tone of the thread has involved commenters indulging in Vat II, post-Vat II Pope and NO gratuitous thumping, it might be timely to take a look at the question of authority in the Catholic Church, specifically in relation to what Vat II set out to do in ecclesial reform and what has been said about the continuity of that Ecumenical Council and the Councils before it.

      Pope John Paul II in Vincesimus Quintus Annus endorsed the Mass of Paul VI:
      "This work is undertaken in accordance with the conciliar principles of fidelity to tradition and openness to legitimate development, and so it is possible to say that the reform of the Liturgy is strictly traditional and 'in accordance with the ancient usage of the holy Fathers.' "

      And in his Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict confirmed and validated the teaching of his predecessor that there is no rupture between the two expressions of the same rite and non between the rite of Pius V and Paul VI.

      These are the teaching of two Popes who can, in no way, be considered tear way liberals.

      You, Christopher, and your de meme pensants, need to have a good long ponder when you pit your collective opinions against the Second Vatican Council which, according to Benedict XVI, contains the essential teaching of all previous Councils, the Popes who are the guardians of the Tradition.

      Delete
    9. David, I think I'll stick with my 'somewhat lost neurosis', whereby I know that an enemy of Christ is not his friend; plus I consider my ability to recognise 'false teachers', like Bergoglio, no small grace. I understand that when betrayal is on the menu it's hard to swallow; read Mr Hedgerow's quote from Corinthians at the top of the page - it's beautiful and excellent. Plus, remember, one with God is a majority - St Athanasius knew this, so did all Faithful 'exiles', exiled for their Faith. There have times before where the enemies of Christ had the buildings but they did nit have the Faith, while Faithful did not have the buildings but they had the Faith.



      Delete
    10. Typical of the schismatic Sede-vacantist, you arrogantly press gang God into your personal kit bag of personal psychopathology and attempt to created a theology around it in order to justify yourself.
      Athanasius would consider you to be what you have become, heterodox!

      Delete
    11. p.s. Hey, Christopher, how's it going? If I'm headed for the 8th circle of hell, where will the new ecclesiologists and the universalists go, I wonder? I'd really prefer not to end up in a circle with the prophet of the satanic verses, he might cut out my tongue or sew up my lips for quoting the Popes who condemned Islam. 'condemned' past tense. 'Popes' don't condemn the wicked ways of enemies anymore (to be fair Benedict XVI called evil evil in a refreshingly Catholic way when it came to the 'turks'). Did you know Luther favoured the Turks over the popes? Nowadays the 'pope' favours Luther and the Turks over the Popes. We live in 'interesting' times as the Chinese might say.

      Delete
    12. David, the religion ofBergoglio teaches that the only thing that matters is something called 'sincerity' -right and wrong are not 'realities' in his religion, unless one is Traditional, then wrong is allowed to be dusted off rolled out. Therefore if one is a sincere the rest doesn't matter. if you adhere to the new teachings of new church, what's the problem? 'specially since we probably are no longer even permitted to discern sincerity and its opposite.

      Delete
    13. As I mentioned before, your disconnect and general stream of consciousness ramble, demonstrates that the real sources of your disgruntled state have nothing to do with religion in any sense of the word.
      You have an authority problem. When the external one ceases to agree with you, you create your own. It's convenient and so much easier. You win every argument against the Straw Men of your imaginings: Turks, slack theologians, Popes, dissenters, sincere Argentinians.
      Hope you share your delirium with Ray Blake, fellow schismatic Zuhlsdorf and the rest whose blogs you and your mates infest.

      Delete
    14. Argument 1:

      'Pope John Paul II in Vincesimus Quintus Annus endorsed the Mass of Paul VI:
      "This work is undertaken in accordance with the conciliar principles of fidelity to tradition and openness to legitimate development, and so it is possible to say that the reform of the Liturgy is strictly traditional and 'in accordance with the ancient usage of the holy Fathers.' "'

      Mass of Pope Paul VI has never officially been promulgated, and as such by the argument of Father Hesse (who departed in good standing with the Church) the Mass of Pope Paul VI since never being promulgated is a schismatic act by anyone who participates.

      'And in his Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict confirmed and validated the teaching of his predecessor that there is no rupture between the two expressions of the same rite and non between the rite of Pius V and Paul VI.'

      Like his Predecesors Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI. Pope Benedict has stressed that the Second Vatican Council is Pastoral only, not dogmatic, which means only that which is in continuity of Tradition can be accepted, and that which goes contrary to Tradition cannot. So as such when Popes Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI and Pius XII condemn Religious Liberty as erroneous, a Council which is Pastoral in nature simply cannot overturn it.

      'You, Christopher, and your de meme pensants, need to have a good long ponder when you pit your collective opinions against the Second Vatican Council which'

      Which is not the only Council to exist, which means you need to take a good long hard look at History, a very good long hard look. Also hilarious is it not? You quote Pope Benedict XVI yet do not seem to acknowledge that the same Pope as Cardinal declared that the Excommunications of a few attending SSPX masses were invalid because they were not schismatic. Seems like someone is either ignorant or being dishonest.

      Delete
    15. 'Athanasius would consider you to be what you have become, heterodox!'

      And you also.

      'Hope you share your delirium with Ray Blake, fellow schismatic Zuhlsdorf and the rest whose blogs you and your mates infest.'

      They are not Schismatic. However given the nature that you attribute to Vatican II over the other Councils, it's likely that that is heresy.

      Viterbo:

      'p.s. Hey, Christopher, how's it going? If I'm headed for the 8th circle of hell, where will the new ecclesiologists and the universalists go, I wonder?'

      It's best to contemplate not where in Hell you're heading but avoiding Hell. You need to understand that there can still be a Pope while there being Heresy in the statement.

      'Popes' don't condemn the wicked ways of enemies anymore (to be fair Benedict XVI called evil evil in a refreshingly Catholic way when it came to the 'turks').

      Pope Benedict, as you refer, did good work in condemning the Mohammedians and Moral Relativism. Pope Paul VI, even with his grave failures, condemned Contraception.

      'Did you know Luther favoured the Turks over the popes?'

      Actually, no.

      'Nowadays the 'pope' favours Luther and the Turks over the Popes. We live in 'interesting' times as the Chinese might say.'

      It really speaks volumes when you have Pope Francis (whom with all due respect) just never shuts up and is silent to the persecutions of the faithful in Iraq and Syria. For crying out loud, while they are being persecuted, he sends Ramadan greetings! God help us come October.

      Delete
    16. Correction:
      Mass of Pope Paul VI has never officially been promulgated, and also as such by the argument of Father Hesse (who departed in good standing with the Church) the Mass of Pope Paul VI is schismatic.

      Delete
    17. And you Christopher do not seem to grasp the import of Benedict's acknowledgment, even insistence, and following his predecessor, that Vatican is continuous with all preceding Councils and that they subsist in Vatican II.
      As for your assertion that the Mass of Paul VI is schismatic then, by implication, you accuse every Pope, priest and the people who have participated in the NO are in Schism.
      It is you who betray your own schismatic attitude and standing when you trot out the same old heterodox chestnuts rejecting Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution the Church, Sacrosanctum Concilium , on Religious Liberty, Nostra Aetate etc.

      Pope John Paul II was very clear about what is the sure guarantee of the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the reforms of Vatican II and that is what the 2800 Council Fathers did in implementing its teaching in their dioceses.

      The Church is not a block of stone, Christopher, it's the living Body of Christ in the world. You need to read some serious history, especially those bits which are uncomfortably and inconveniently discontinuous from your own fossilised magisterium.

      Delete
    18. David, you flatter me. Me, creator of the infallible sacred magisterium of the True Faith? No, the aforementioned is the authority I draw upon - I promise I had nothing to do with its revelation (I'm sure you would agree that said magisterium is not the work of a disgruntled fantasist?) I even permit this magisterium to interpret Scripture for me rather than prefering the exegesis of a despiser of that magisterium such as Bergoglio, who would have me believe that Christ pretends, the Blessed Virgin raged in anger at God calling Him a liar, and that the old covenant wrought in the blood of beasts continues to be every bit as valid as the singularly redemptive Testament of Christ's Blood. Deo gratias - He wants us to be knowledgeable - He gave us the Sacred Deposit of Faith whereby those of us who accept it know what the Faith teaches and preaches so that when anyone, even a would be pope, speaks against it we know they are false. The Church has enemies, She always has had enemies - so many within as well - not just one Judas amongst eleven other Apostles, but these days more like eleven Judases for every one Apostle. At any rate, the Church teaches that most poor souls don't find eternal life but eternal death. There's a passage from Ezekial, "And if the watchman see the sword coming, and sound not the trumpet: and the people look not to themselves, and the sword come, and cut off a soul from among them: he indeed is taken away in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at the hand of the watchman." A common interpretation is that the 'watchman' is a wicked Bishop who fails to equip the souls in his care with the means to eternal life. The passage makes it clear that the price of lost souls will be 'required at the hands of the watchman', but it also makes it clear that those souls content to be led astray or misinformed lose themselves. We have a personal responsibility to know the Faith and not lose our own souls through the failure of the watchman to sound the alarm.

      “Know this: it is by very little breaches of regularity that the devil succeeds in introducing the greatest abuses. May you never end up saying: ‘This is nothing, this is an exaggeration.’” (Saint Teresa of Avila, Foundations, Chapter Twenty-nine)

      Delete
    19. Another live one!

      Delete
    20. 'And you Christopher do not seem to grasp the import of Benedict's acknowledgment, even insistence, and following his predecessor, that Vatican is continuous with all preceding Councils and that they subsist in Vatican II. '

      Please do demonstrate how Pope Gregory XVI, Pope Pius IX, Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius X, Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII whom condemned religious liberty, are reconciled with the Vatican II propagation of religious liberty without demonstrating a contradiction.

      'As for your assertion that the Mass of Paul VI is schismatic then, by implication, you accuse every Pope, priest and the people who have participated in the NO are in Schism.'

      There are two degrees of heresy and schism, Formal and Material. Formal is awareness and participation, Material is participation without awareness. Fr. Hesse Thomistic Theologian, and Doctor of the Church has demonstrated such, if you have issues with Fr. Hesse's assertion, review his work and state the flaws.

      'It is you who betray your own schismatic attitude'

      Schismatic is to cut off from and deny the Successor of Saint Peter Pope Francis, which is not True. Slander No. 1.

      'and standing when you trot out the same old heterodox chestnuts rejecting Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution the Church, Sacrosanctum Concilium , on Religious Liberty, Nostra Aetate etc.'

      Demonstrate what Heresies precisely, it's very obvious that you cannot. However, you sir are condemned by Popes Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII. And ignore still that nothing in Vatican II is dogmatically binding except that which has already been taught. Religious Liberty is not one of those and is merely pastoral, which is non-binding and thus can be disagreed upon without any issues to the Faith.

      'Pope John Paul II was very clear about what is the sure guarantee of the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the reforms of Vatican II and that is what the 2800 Council Fathers did in implementing its teaching in their dioceses.'

      Popes John XXIII and Paul VI explicitly stated, along with Pope Benedict XVI, that the nature of the Council is Pastoral and non-binding. Pope John Paul II is in error in that regards, sorry.

      'The Church is not a block of stone, Christopher, it's the living Body of Christ in the world.'

      The Church does not change, it is not an organism that adapts and changes overtime. That is Modernist Philosophy, and if that is what you adhere to, you are a Heretic in accordance to the condemnations of St. Pius X.

      'You need to read some serious history, especially those bits which are uncomfortably and inconveniently discontinuous from your own fossilised magisterium.'

      Given that History is a serious interest, I assure you, I am well aware of the History of the Church. And if you were to read the history of the Church, you will know that you are in Heresy. 'To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant' were the wise words of Blessed Newman. To be deep in history is to cease to be a heretic.

      Delete
    21. It is obvious but expectedly so that you are incapable or unwilling to distinguish between core beliefs and the theological language which describes them in any age.

      What is even clearer is that you have elevated the comfortable assertions and heterodox apologias scripted for you and your schismatic cult followers of Christ Chaos, Rorate Caeli, Zuhlsdorf, the Remnant etc.

      You are still extra Ecclesiam Jesu Christi.

      Delete
    22. Again, list and describe the heresies!

      You cannot, all you can seem to do is slander.

      Delete
    23. Another live one who is incapable of distinguishing core Catholic beliefs from a stack of assertions, the private magisterium of minor players such Hesse, unexamined reliance on the Trad herd mentality and his own personal neurotic fixations.
      If it wasn't matters of religious contention it would be something else: climate change, home schooling, Socialism?

      Delete
    24. Again, list the supposed heresies, and give a description! Surely it's not that hard?

      As to Fr. Hesse, have you even read his work or heard his work? He does not use his own authority, but of prior Popes. But then again, you probably didn't even take the time to actually look into the work.

      Delete
    25. You are not going any where near the seat of your own confusion Christopher. Hesse, The Remnant, Rorate Caeli, SSPX, Zuhlsdorf, Christ Chaos and related schismatics will not assist you.

      What you are failing to recognise is that you have created a rod for your own back by superficially and quite erroneously pitching Popes against Popes, Councils against Councils.
      Since you show nothing but contempt for Pope Francis perhaps you have a different attitude towards his two immediate predecessors.

      Both John Paul II and Benedict XVI made it quite clear in their collective Magisterium that the Second Vatican Council contained all the teaching of the previous Councils and that the documents of Vatican II, including those on religious Liberty and Non-Christian religions enjoyed the full authority of the Church's Magisterium and Tradition. They also taught that the liturgical reforms of Paul VI are authentic developments in the Tradition and enjoy the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which binds all Catholics in mind and will.

      You and, it seems, most of your colleagues here and on the many sites you deposit your views, are in the business of protecting a flawed ideology which has nothing to do with God, Faith or the Church's Tradition, but a great deal to do with group's collective psychological and spiritual insecurities and the need for other to do the thinking for you.
      If you really want to study the hair raising early history of the Church, read the New Testament. More happened in those first fifty or sixty years after Pentecost than in the five hundred years after.

      Delete
    26. You have not listed and described the supposed heresies. Again, list and describe the heresies!

      As to the rest:

      1) Again, they are not schismatics, Pope Benedict has clarified as such. You're doing nothing more than committing slander. You have no evidence, and you're just wasting time.

      2) No Council can Contradict Council, no Pope can contradict Pope when it comes to Tradition.

      'Since you show nothing but contempt for Pope Francis perhaps you have a different attitude towards his two immediate predecessors.'

      False accusation no. 3.

      3) Again, you have ignored what was said.

      Pope John XXIII has explicitly stated that Vatican II was Pastoral, non-dogmatic. 'Aims and spirit of Vatican II

      John XXIII wanted a pastoral Council and one of renovation.' (VATICAN COUNCIL II: LIGHT FOR THE CHURCH AND FOR THE MODERN WORLD
      Vincenzo Carbone) [http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01051997_p-21_en.html]

      Pope Benedict XVI:

      'The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.


      Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI given July 13, 1988, in Santiago, Chile'

      'In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document.

      Pope Paul VI


      General Audience, 12 January 1966'

      4) Given that the Infallibility of St. Pope Pius V in relation to the State of the Tridentine Rite cannot be removed, and St. Pope Pius V forbayed any modification of the Rite or any new Rite, along with Canon 13 of Session 7 of the General Council of Trent, the New Liturgical Reforms by the argument of Fr. Hesse are in nature Schismatic.

      'flawed ideology which has nothing to do with God, Faith or the Church's Tradition, but a great deal to do with group's collective psychological and spiritual insecurities and the need for other to do the thinking for you.'

      More slander.

      5) How about you actually read Church History? Not just the New Testament, and actually look at the Councils and the Teachings of the Popes past.

      Sir, you are a heretic by the fact that you turn Vatican II into a super dogma. You have established that somehow John Paul II has managed to somehow exclusively decide that Vatican II was guided by the Holy Spirit when it was a Pastoral Council in nature. You have made the claim that the Magisterium is subject to change. You also seem to claim that Popes are able to contradict Popes in matters of teaching which places previous Popes in error on serious issues of the faith.

      That means sir, you are a Modernist. And your accusations of Heresy to those who raise legitimate concerns also applies to Popes Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII.

      As Pope Pius XII stated: "That which is not true or moral does not have any objective right to existence, publicity, or action." (Pius XII, December 6, 1953). And you have effectively labelled him a Heretic.

      You have yet again avoided demonstrating the supposed heresies, but you cower away and simply derail the topic and try to regain ground in argument by asserting that Vatican II was pastoral. All you do is commit false accusations, which by the way is a violation of the Ten Commandments.

      Good Day, I waste no more time with you.

      Delete
    27. Correction: 'and try to regain ground in argument by asserting that Vatican II was [beyond] pastoral.'

      Delete
    28. Yet another example of cherry picking, dissemblance, misrepresentation, amateur analysis and poor reading skills.
      You lot are experts in this Keystone Kops attempt at conversation and like them, you all fall over when you get tired.

      Delete
    29. Actually no, it's just that we don't like wasting time with brick walls.

      Yet again, if you want a serious discussion:

      Identify and describe the heresies that you accuse Traditionalists of. You have not despite being asked four times.

      If you cannot, and you will not, because you can not, then there is no more wasting time. As to the cherry picking, that is ironic coming from the individual who states that Vatican II is infallible because Pope John Paul II said so, despite Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI and Pope Benedict XVI saying otherwise.

      End of discussion.

      Delete
    30. It is evident from your admissions in other places, John, that you are barely clinging to your membership card with your two bob each way bets on a Latino Pope you can barely tolerate. The most of the cohort around you have dumped him the day he was elected. Take a look at the blog comment records of some of the more neurotic depressive who post here and elsewhere. You should know that. If you don't, you are even more deluded than I thought.

      Delete
  6. Meeters and greeters are so last decade. Better to have ushers and usherettes with trays of vanilla ice-cream tubs and Kia-Ora drinks for the boring intermissions like the Offertory..

    ReplyDelete
  7. Isn't it so!

    But first one must make his way through the marketplace / narthex of fundraisers.

    - Mack in Texas

    ReplyDelete
  8. One time a greeter tried to greet the Bear. None of his replacements have since.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I have managed to now time my entrance so that the opening hymn has just started and the greeters have taken their seats.

    The first thing I want to see when I set foot in my Church is the tabernacle and altar.I just want to bow my knee and think about a God who humbles himself to invite me to Mass. Instead I feel bullied into giving the well-wishers my full attention or- to cause offence by ignoring them and focusing on the tabernacle and altar.

    The only solution I have come up with is to arrive at Mass a few seconds late. How I absolutely love going to Mass on weekdays as well- no greeters. No congregation half the time.

    Anne O' Kneemus

    ReplyDelete
  10. It might have been different in England but in the U.S. in pre-Vatican II days, ushers acted like ushers. By this I mean that if you showed up for Mass and the pews were pretty filled up, ushers standing at the back of the Church would ask you how many you were and - while you and your family continued standing there - one of them would walk up the aisle looking for seats for you. Once he spotted a pew where there was a little space, the usher would ask those sitting to move closer together to free up some space. Then he would look down the aisle to you and put up his fingers indicating that he found two seats or three seats or whatever. If he couldn't find seats for all of you together he would keep working until he found seats for each of you, even if you had to be split up.

    For some reason that practice was stopped when we entered the Novus Ordo age. Now the ushers stand there at the back of Church on Sundays and do nothing. It's especially noticeable at Christmas and Easter - the two times the Churches are sure to be full - and people line up along the walls when many of them could be squeezed into seats with a little assistance from the ushers. The ushers still collect money and hand out bulletins but they no longer do what they're mainly supposed to be doing, which is helping people find pews to sit in.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Personally, I have little to do with “greeters”. As well as being able to put on a nice welcoming friendly smile, I have long since developed the capacity for a “sod off” grim look. I don’t actually say anything of course, but they get the message.

    As for lay distributers of Holy Communion, I have nothing to do with them since I only receive from hands which have been anointed for the purpose of handling the Blessed Sacrament and the sacred vessels. I would, however, make an exception in unusual circumstances for an Acolyte, and perhaps even myself, if the Viking battle axes were hammering on the Church door.

    Incidentally, I find it difficult to spare a thought for your average parish priest these days. I mean they are so, what’s the word , invisible. They do little and say little, so as not to offend any of the elderly, 45+ mums with their 1.4 children.

    ReplyDelete
  12. ' As for Extraordinary Ministers it seems to me that the only occasion that they are not required is at an Extraordinary Mass - curiouser and curiouser.' About says it all.

    p.s. you forgot to mention the 'preventers'; those who prevent you from praying quietly before and after mass - they come along and shake you as if you must be sleeping on your knees and proceed to give a sports or weather report. Then there's the 'snipers' who pounce on you in the middle of mass with no warning and demand you do the readings. Once upon a time in orderly and reverent days now outlawed one had to be at least a deacon to have such a privilege - it is no longer a privilege, just an opportunity to further assault the conscience and prayerfullness of those who don't 'fit in' with the new 'extroverts only' gathering.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'd say the Traditional Latin Mass has a more difficult time now than in the pre-Vatican II days, but I'm not complaining.

    It's hard, especially when the TLM is sharing a mixed-use sacristy with an English Novus Ordo Mass.

    We hold our TLM in a chapel attached to a Novus Ordo parish, and where another Novus Ordo Mass follows ours. Because the NO has been in that chapel since the beginning, we feel like we're mere guests there instead of being part of the parish.

    For one, our Latin Mass priest is "borrowed" from another diocese and he travels many miles just to get to us on Sundays and holydays. He carries two big suitcases of his own vestments, sacred vessels, altar cards, communion paten, thurrible, incense boat, holy water bucket and asperil, Sanctus bell, cruets, and altar linens (corporals, purificators, finger towels.) He also makes his own Eucharistic bread and provides his own wine.

    Because the chapel only has one pair of holders for liquid candles, our coetus fidelium shelled out for the regulation three pairs of tall brass candlesticks and beeswax tapers, and the three layers of pure linen cover for the altar. (The NO uses only one altar cloth made of poly-cotton lace.)

    The ladies of our group also provide our own "Altar Society" services such as washing of altar linens and flower arrangements on the altar in between the candlesticks. (The NO group has their huge flower vases on the floor, fronting the altar, which we have to move out-of-the-way because there's where our priest stands.)

    It takes at least a half-hour to set up for the TLM, plus a few minutes more after Mass (to put the NO altar back to how it was originally set up.)

    You think the four-hymn-sandwich that the Novus Ordo uses hard to do? Not if you sing the same songs at least a dozen times during Ordinary Time. Try chanting the Propers of the TLM that vary from Sunday to Sunday. Each set of Introit, Gradual, Alleluia (Tract during Lent), Offertory and Communion Antiphons is customized to fit only one Mass per year - to be repeated only the following year.

    Our Ladies Scola alternate with a single-voice friar chanting the Propers. We have to practice at least once or twice a week just to get the Introit and Offertory neumes down pat, almost to the point of shedding tears. At least the Ordinary (Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus and Agnus Dei) tunes change only from season to season, and they're easier to learn. But the Propers are a completely different sort of beasts.

    Still, we're not complaining. We have no greeters, no after-Mass coffee hour, no microphones, no holding hands at the Pater Noster, no kiss of peace, no guitars (no organ, either, as the chapel only has a piano), no extraordinary communion ministers, no lay lectors, etc.

    But we feel the TLM is all worth it.

    Marietta in California




    ReplyDelete
  14. David,

    Much as I enjoyed your exchange with the posters here, I'm afraid there's one bit you got wrong:

    " . . . you might focus your protest on Jesus Christ who reduced all the Commandments and the teachings of the Prophets to one mandate . . .".

    Jesus did nothing of the sort. He said different things to different audiences but they in no way detract or cancel out each other. So when a certain ruler asks Christ what he must do to inherit eternal life, Our Lord responds: "You know the commandments. You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother".

    When Jesus says, "You know the Commandments" He is referring to the Ten Commandments - He even spells it out - probably sarcastically as the young man would have been Jewish. "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them" is based on Christ's command that as you would wish others to keep the Ten Commandments towards you, so you keep the Ten C's towards them.

    ReplyDelete
  15. If you base your moral conduct on the 10 Commandments then you are certainly following a code of conduct common to semitic tribal societies. Jews and Muslims still follow this 'law of the balance' but that does not make them Christians.

    What makes you different from them, Annie? Share your secret.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Jesus Christ i.e. God based our moral conduct on the Ten Commandments. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Annie, if you read Matthew 5 you might begin to understand what I'm talking about.
      In the meantime, you might contemplate the fact that you were not prepared to attempt a serious response to the point I made about the 10 Commandments adding nothing to Christianity. Again, I suggest that you read Matthew 5 to see just how far Jesus went beyond the moral principles enshrined in semitic triabl law.

      Delete
  17. " . . . see just how far Jesus went beyond the moral principles enshrined in semitic triabl (sic) law."

    Your suggestion that the Jesus of Matthew 5 went beyond the moral principles of the Jesus of Luke 18 is a hoot!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Read what I wrote not what you interpolate. It could be a whole new experience for you Annie.

      Delete
  18. Regarding Church authority, this is how unCatholic newchurch has become. 'Amazingly, the document [new Sensus Fidei] also validates the not-infrequent experience of Catholics who find themselves unable to accept certain teachings "if they do not recognize in that teaching the voice of Christ, the Good Shepherd." Therefore, newchurch, by its own admission [God is good, indeed] validates rejection of it, if one "does not recognize in that teaching the voice of Christ, the Good Shepherd [or the voice of True Magisterium]", and after all the Voice of the Shepherd and His true shepherds of His perennial doctrine should be one voice.

    http://ncronline.org/blogs/simply-spirit/top-10-quotes-vaticans-sensus-fidei-document

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2tza4nRYv4

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are Heretics.

      Delete
    2. I agree. To quote St Francis de Sales (recently denigrated - on masse with other true preachers of Christ - by Bergoglio), "The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it."

      The above poisoners of the well are poisoners of the well - that is to say, heretics; just like those promulgating the new 'Sensus Fidei'.

      Bergolio, the other day, 'apologized for the work of countless Catholic martyrs and saints to win back souls from Protestant sects and to stem the spread of their blasphemous heresies in Catholic lands.' (T Droleskey)

      http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/pope-s-address-to-pentecostal-community-in-caserta

      If all one was stuck with was Bergoglio's latest schmagisterial act, it would be schmismatic for one to ask St Francis de Sales to pray for us. Happily we have an authentic magisterium and authentic saints invested with authentic authority by Christ the King. As such, St Francis de Sales, pray for us!

      Delete
    3. You would say that, wouldn't you, Viterbo, as you follow your scriptwriter and schismatic mentor the eccentric Droleskey of Christ Chaos.
      Even the on-again-off-again Christopher believes that you have made the trip to the fruitcake end of the heterodoxy spectrum.
      Say the same thing on Ray Blake's blog and see how long you get away with it.

      Delete
    4. 'Bergolio, the other day, 'apologized for the work of countless Catholic martyrs and saints to win back souls from Protestant sects and to stem the spread of their blasphemous heresies in Catholic lands.' (T Droleskey)'

      Oh it was worse than that. Apparently the Martyrs were possessed by devils. Pope St.Pius X in his Catechism condemned insults to Saints as Blasphemy.

      Delete
    5. 'If all one was stuck with was Bergoglio's latest schmagisterial act, it would be schmismatic for one to ask St Francis de Sales to pray for us. Happily we have an authentic magisterium and authentic saints invested with authentic authority by Christ the King. As such, St Francis de Sales, pray for us!'

      Again, please, you must understand where the Infallibility begins and ends. To say that the Pope can never err is simply Heretical, because it is to say he is always Infallible.

      Delete
  19. Sorry for the abundance of comments, but it would be of aid to Viterbo if the following website were recommended to him:

    www.harvestingthefruit.com

    And it would be another blog for Mr. Collins to read.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris - 'viterbo' after Rose of Viterbo, therefore 'she' - very much appreciate Mr Verrecchio's site. Dave - would appreciate if you refrained from reference-inverting my pitiful comments with regards to Thomas Droleskey (who used to write for the Wanderer believe it or not) then wrote 'Conversion in Reverse: How the Ethos of Americanism Converted Catholics and Contribute to the Rise of Conciliarism'.

      Delete
    2. Mea Culpa

      Delete
  20. I wonder if 'David' would care to identify himself? His splenetic ranting borders on the pathological. If he were standing next to me at the bar I would be tempted to pour a pint of beer over him, much as I dislike wasting beer.

    He is entitled to regard the SSPX as schismatic, although the evidence for this supposition seems to me to be weak compared with the evidence to the contrary. However, I think he ought at least to attempt to justify his referring to Frs John Zuhlsdorf and Ray Blake as schismatic. The last time I looked at Canon Law schism was not defined as being in disagreement with 'David' (whoever he is).





    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Get yourself skilled up in literary analysis, John. It might help level out your pomposity, pretence and hubris as well as further your education.

      Delete
    2. Pomposity? I have sometimes been accused of it (usually by intellectual inferiors). Pretence? However one might define it, it is not something I have ever been charged with. As for hubris (arrogance inviting disaster in the form of nemesis) I think I can plead 'not guilty'.

      What has literary analysis got to do with it? You sound like someone who once did A-Level English and has never quite forgotten it. The fact that you use terms like 'skilled up' and 'level out' suggest that you still think and write as a 17-year-old.

      Take away the bluff, bluster and name-calling, and actually you have nothing of any substance to say. The idea of your furthering anyone's education is preposterous. You have good reasons for not identifying yourself, since in a genuine debate you would be utterly trounced and exposed for the buffoon you obviously are.

      Delete
    3. John, I was writing for a 17 year old but I clearly overestimated your age level.
      Try your hand at mixing with adults who have the maturity and confidence to think independently of the mentality of the herd. You are a follower, not a leader, John, You just haven't woken up to that fact yet. Your paper trail around blogdom frequented by hysterics, the guilt ridden, the ignorant and the uncertain speaks volumes for your own insecurity.

      Delete
    4. My dear David "The Watcher"

      Many thanks for keeping the Catholic blogosphere entertained with your antics for the last several days.

      Even the rantings of that great scion of liberal confusion, Ferdinand Mass-Trousers pall in comparison with your bravely incontinent rampage through Richard's combox.

      I think it entirely sensible that you are so heavily invested in the time and effort youclaim to have put into stalking Richard's regular correspondents (and a couple of decent priests in good standing) through a variety of named blogs. I am only amazed that you did not pause in your relentless bloodhounding to add some of your wit and wisdom to Fr Blake's blog (or elsewhere) under your current posting name.

      Having suffered alarm and distress at the fallout from Vatican 2 over the years (including flamenco-dancing priests, wreckovated altars,and the dreary heresies of Rahner and Kung) all those whom you have chosen to insult are impervious to the passive-aggressive cod-psychology you have vomited over them here. A brisk rendition of the Prayer to St Michael is all that is required to extricate oneself from the cesspit of your world-view.

      Please do keep going. It keeps you off the streets, which, given the insight we now have into your demonically-oppressed thought processes, is quite obviously a service to society at large..


      Delete
    5. Oh yes, Jadis. Coming on as night watchman eh? Pity Nolan had to retire hurt. That ten runs in 150 minutes was a fine knock.

      Delete
    6. How simply splendid that you have returned to the fray. I was worried that your dirty mac had come back from Sketchleys, and that you were out poisoning pigeons in the park.

      Did you choose to emote on a blog with green background so that the green-ink splashes on your Amstrad screen would be less noticeable?

      Delete
  21. His irrational personal attacks are not worthy of attention. Just say a prayer for him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh they're worth it Lynda. It's just that you are not up to the conversation. As you demonstrate here and on other blogs like Blake, Zuhlsdorf etc, you are content to condemn, fulminate, wring your hands, moan, bleat and complain but you have nothing of substance to say.
      Grow up!

      Delete
  22. Let's pause for a little while and pray today's Mysteries of the Rosary.

    Ouch - that sounds prissy. Didn't mean it to. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Which Churches might be fitting for greeters meeters liturgical dance and that twenty year old favorite toe tapper - musical extraordinary ministers?:

    http://www.realclearreligion.org/lists/the_ugliest_churches_in_the_world/solid_rock_church.html?state=stop

    (keep clicking the right arrow if you dare)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. viterbo, Jesus Christ would have not only been a huge disappointment to you had you been close by millennia ago, he would have been an abomination and a disgrace in your eyes.

      The choices you continue to make for an exotic, effete and sterile excuse for orthodoxy are evidence of your contempt for the Incarnation Word and his People.

      Delete
    2. Our Lord is today, yesterday, and tomorrow - the same.

      http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/top-10-secrets-to-happiness-catholic-version/#comments

      Delete
  24. Much ado about nothing....meanwhile Catholics in Mosul are on the road to extinction..

    ReplyDelete
  25. 'Incarnation Word', David? I was wrong about A-Level English - even primary school children can distinguish a noun from an adjective. Or is it a new term you have coined to describe yourself?

    I don't know viterbo, but I would not infer from his comments that he would have regarded Our Lord as 'an abomination and a disgrace'. Nor would I have the arrogance to assume that anyone who disagreed with me was emotionally insecure or educationally retarded, still less that they were schismatic. Some indeed may adhere to schism, but it is not for you to decide. If you accuse someone (especially a priest) of being a schismatic, you need to substantiate your allegation or withdraw it. You have done neither.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is evident from your admissions in other places, John, that you are barely clinging to your membership card with your two bob each way bets on a Latino Pope you can barely tolerate. The most of the cohort around you have dumped him the day he was elected. Take a look at the blog comment records of some of the more neurotic depressive who post here and elsewhere. You should know that. If you don't, you are even more deluded than I thought.

      Delete
  26. David is an ignoramus, a buffoon, a vulgarian, and an idiot (begging the pardon of all idiots). He is the textbook definition of an attention seeking, ill-behaved, petulant blog troll. Ignore him...his species leave when starved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When I read David's petulant and ill-expressed comments ('two-bob each way bets' is another example) I doubt he has actually read or at least understood what I have written. If not, perhaps he might like to quote chapter and verse. Of course he won't, since his modus operandi is to put into other people's mouths what he in his perfervid and twisted imagination would like them to have said. Ecclesiastes had him bang to rights: Quia sicut sonitus spinarum ardentium sub olla, sic risus stulti. (7:6)

      Delete
  27. Methinks David is non other than the poor deluded person who writes under various identities sometimes that of a Priest. His vitriolic style is always the same and always aimed at those blogs of a traditional nature. The poor man deserves our prayers whoever he may be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He won't get mine. His therapist might merit our prayers for his forbearance.

      Delete
  28. What a sickening waste of time, energy and talents!
    Come on everyone - out on the naughty step with you.
    Sue

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sue, you are so right. The persecution and reportedly crucifixion of Christians in Iraq is a direct result of the decision of the Western Powers to depose Saddam Hussein despite the fact that, bad bastard as he undoubtedly was, he was no Islamic extremist and protected the Christian minority. After his Kuwait adventure we had him where we wanted him anyway.

      So where are the calls for military action now? ISIS would never survive a tent-pegging from the West. Why is the Pope, so voluble on every other occasion, strangely reticent when Christians are persecuted? Why would he rather apologise to Protestants (who called his predecessors Anti-Christ) for not approving their heresy?

      These are genuine questions which need genuine answers.

      Delete
    2. Delate the Argentinian to Card Mueller and demand answers. He understands this kind of insistent approach. This would probably not be new to you.

      Delete
    3. I agree, Nolan is a pretentious, self-promoting bore. You should avoid association with him.

      Delete
    4. Troll alert! David has a new persona, Interlocutor (the timing of the posting, ten to three in the morning, rather gives the game away). If you can't find anyone to agree with you, post under another name (or Name) and just agree with yourself. Simples!

      Delete
    5. Say a prayer. The constant irrational attacks on the person with attempts to intimidate may indicate illness.

      Delete
  29. Who knows, John, perhaps Pope Francis is more effectively using his influence behind the scenes.
    I wouldn't be too quick to judge.
    Not sure whether this has anything to do with RC's - as ever - provocative post which predictably belittles the NO Mass again.
    Not a view I share.

    Sue

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sue, one can only hope so. As for the NO Mass (which I attend on a fairly regular basis) I have always maintained it needs to be judged on its own terms. When celebrated in Latin with the chants specified in the Graduale it is not too far removed from the Roman Rite. The new translation (should one need it) isn't too bad either. There are, however, some elements of performance practice which are not mandated and in some cases reprobated, but which still persist, and it is surely in order to criticize these and where appropriate to hold them up to mild ridicule.

      Delete
    2. 'Not too far removed from the Roman Rite"?

      Does the Novus Ordo belong to a different Rite, John Nolan?

      Delete
    3. Does the Novus Ordo belong to a different Rite? The fact that it is a valid and authorized Rite used in the Roman Church does not make it the Roman Rite which exists sui generis, and in its 1962 revision operates alongside it, with parity of esteem. If it is revised in the future (which it may well be, as it has been in the past) such revisions will only affect it and not the Novus Ordo, now in its third 'editio typica'. In the past, a new edition of the Missale Romanum supplanted the previous one, but this is not what has happened. Bugnini was alert to this, which is why he wanted the older Rite to be formally abrogated, but he was not even allowed to apply for this, and Paul VI would have been aware that to do so would have been without precedent and probably ultra vires.

      In Summorum Pontificum Benedict XVI could have referred to two 'Uses' of the Roman Rite. In fact the term 'Usus Antiquior' was in general use. However, a simple textual comparison between the Missals of 1962 and 1970 show that the latter diverges too much from the former to be properly considered a Use of the Roman Rite. This is especially true if the Roman Canon, the oldest anaphora to have come down to us, is not used. It was only added to the NO as an option at the last minute on the insistence of Paul VI.

      Had Benedict admitted what is patently true, that we have two distinct Rites, then it follows that only one can be accurately called the Roman Rite, and that has to be the older one since it has always been identified as such. This might have caused some to question the validity of the newer Rite, and so we have the legal fiction of two 'forms' of the same Roman Rite, which is useful but not really satisfactory. Pope Francis has referred to the 'Forma Extraordinaria' as the 'Vetus Ordo' which strongly implies the existence of two distinct Rites. Priests who offer both forms of Mass, such as the Oratorians, are described as 'bi-ritual'.

      The Western Church has allowed the celebration of Rites other than the Roman, an obvious example being the Ambrosian Rite of Milan. So to return to the original question, the Novus Ordo does not 'belong to' a different Rite, it 'is' a different Rite.



      Delete
  30. In your rush to rationalise your confusion, all you have succeeded in doing is to bungle an attempt to put scorched earth around your ignorance.
    You have probably done just enough to give your colleagues the impression that you remain the unchallenged illuminatus you pretend to be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You asked a question, I answered it. I challenge you to refute, with evidence, any or all of the points I made. I'm willing to have my 'two bob bet' that you don't, since that would mean engaging in rational argument, which isn't quite your style.

      Delete
    2. The 'Name' is correct, you are not so you lose your two bob.

      Delete
  31. The 'usus antquior' and the Novus Ordo, the Extraordinary Form and the Ordinary Form are of the same Rite. Would you like it in Morse Code, Semaphore or, perhaps in Ugaritc?

    ReplyDelete
  32. I think we should all ignore this David chap. He seems full of hate for the truth of the Catholic Faith. To reply to his nasty comments is just what he feeds on. Ignore him. . .

    ReplyDelete
  33. It doesn't matter whether you label them EF and OF, Vetus Ordo and Novus Ordo, Usus Antiquior and Usus Recentior, Joannine Missal and Pauline Missal, Ritus romanus and Ritus modernus (cf Klaus Gamber), even Old Roman Rite and New Roman Rite, the fact is that they are distinct.

    The compilers of the new Mass were under no illusions. Joseph Gelineau wrote in 'Demain la Liturgie' (1976): 'To tell the truth, it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity. The Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists, it has been destroyed ...'. Joseph Ratzinger made much the same point but less nihilistically when he wrote: 'The old building was taken down and another was built, largely from the material of the previous building of course, and also using the old design ... but it was a new building'. Again, in his preface to Gamber's critique of the liturgical reform: 'This is not a development of living liturgy, but substitutes this with a fabrication following the pattern of technical production, the banal product of the moment' (das platte Produkt des Augenblicks).

    If, as Gelineau confidently asserted in 1976, the Roman Rite 'as we knew it' no longer exists, then the Novus Ordo could simply be called the Roman Rite. But aside from the fact that the classic Roman Rite has a historical existence, it still lives today in the Church - indeed, it has been given a new lease of life in the last decade. The term 'of the same Rite' is ambiguous. It can mean that the rites are distinct but have a common origin. It can mean that the intention and efficacy of both are the same. I wouldn't argue with either of these propositions. Most traditionally-minded Catholics were happy to accept Benedict XVI's definition in SP. It was the progressive 'liturgists' on blogs like PrayTell who suddenly came over all 'historical' (as well as hysterical), bleating that you can't have two forms of a single rite. Did they imagine that Benedict, the most liturgically-aware pope since at least Pius X, was not aware of this?

    Using Gamber as an example, I shall continue to refer to the Roman Rite and the Novus Ordo. It makes sense both liturgically and historically. I shall also hang on to my two bob, since you have not addressed any of my arguments. Making a bald statement and then agreeing with yourself isn't good enough.

    ReplyDelete
  34. You continue to confuse Forms with Rites. Ratizinger didn't. From around 1995, maybe before then, he came up with a hybrid of the two forms which would constitute what came to be promoted as the Roman Rite, mutually enriched buy the Extraordinary and Ordinary Forms.

    Follow that paper trail, John, and you might learn some modern history of the liturgy. Furthermore, if you want to get some perspective on just much Ratzinger shifted theological addresses from 1968 until now in his retired state, read his Vatican II memoirs.
    He had some very unflattering views, even strong convictions, on what a disaster the Mass of Pius V had become for the Church, how operatic it had become and just how spiritually alienating it was for the pew sitters.

    He appreciated the fact that some of the great saints such as Catherine of Siena, John of the Cross, Ignatius of Loyola did not draw much significant inspiration from the Eucharistic liturgy precisely because it was remote, soulless and alienating.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At last! An attempt at an argument with no name calling! However, the argument is flawed. The 'Mass of Pius V' is little different from the earliest printed Missals of a century earlier, and has much in common with other Uses which Pius was happy to allow to continue; perhaps the best known of these is the 13th century Dominican Rite (or Use - the terms are to some extent interchangeable). We know a lot about how the Liturgy developed from the time of Gregory the Great, and if the Mass was 'a disaster for the Church' in 1570 then it must have been a disaster for many centuries previously. Not that Ratzinger ever described the Mass in these terms - his model for liturgical reform was the moderate path exemplified by Guardini; in fact he used the title of Guardini's book for his own.

      'From around 1995 ... he came up with a hybrid of the two forms which would constitute what came to be promoted as the Roman Rite'. Where is your evidence for this assertion? It is true that Ratzinger came to the conclusion that the ideals of the Liturgical Movement had been betrayed and even perverted. He was on the Cardinatial commission which ruled that the Old Rite had never been abrogated, and would probably have wanted EDA to have gone further in emancipating it, but was deterred by episcopal opposition. There is, however, no 'hybrid of the two forms' nor is there likely to be in the foreseeable future.

      'Remote, soulless, alienating'. Your words, not Cardinal Ratzinger's. Eamon Duffy and the Cambridge school of Reformation historians have shown that in late medieval England the liturgy was not so perceived (quite the opposite in fact) and no doubt it was the same elsewhere. Reiterating the now discredited canards of the Protestants, with a large dollop of 20th century prejudice thrown in, shows a singular lack of understanding.

      Delete
    2. John Nolan: For Joseph Ratzinger's thoughts on the pre-Vatican II Mass see, John Wilkins, "Ratzinger at Vatican II." Commonweal, June 4, 2010. He cites Fr Ratzinger repeated from his 1966 diaries 'Theological Highlights of Vatican II.'
      Some excerpts: The High Mass of the Baroque era "became a kind of sacred opera," which lead to "the total impoverishment of the liturgy."
      On the people's participation in the Tridentine Mass, Ratzinger wrote that "They were united with the priest only by being in the same Church with him."
      Furthermore, Ratzinger wrote that if the liturgy's function was to be recovered, the wall of Latinity had to be breached."

      As for Cardinal Ratzinger's tinkering with the idea of a hybrid of the two forms of the Roman Rite, see his 2003 letter to Dr Heinz-Lothar Barth, a lay disciple of the SSPX. This can be found on Joseph O'Leary homepage, 13/11/2007. This wish of Ratzinger later came to be known as 'Mutual Enrichment' of the two forms of the Roman Rite.

      Cardinal Raymond Burke became one of the main promoters of 'Mutual Enrichment' as can be seen in http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/12/hoping-for-hybrid-missal.html
      Here's a quote from Card Burke: "It seems to me this is what he (Benedict) has in mind is that this mutual enrichment would seem to naturally (sic) produce a new form of the Roman Rite, the 'Reform of the Reform,' if we may - all of which I would welcome and look forward to its advent."

      Delete
    3. Good points, David, all the more cogent since you avoid hyperbole and invective. The Council of Trent, like Vatican II, was anxious to connect the laity to the Sacred Liturgy. The great medieval cathedrals were mostly monastic institutions, and the Mass and Office were celebrated by the monks in the choir, which was separated from the nave by a massive screen. Processions into the nave helped to bring the Liturgy to the people, but the Counter-Reformation trend, which culminated in the Baroque, got rid of screens so that everyone's attention could be focused on the High Altar and the sacred drama that took place there.

      There was a down-side, which Pius X recognized and Joseph Ratzinger also acknowledged, which was the 'operatic ' aspect, one feature of this being the neglect and corruption of Gregorian Chant. Pius X virtually kick-started the Liturgical Movement.

      The question remains as to whether the post-V2 reform which was carried out in great haste has been a success. In terms of Mass attendance it would appear not to be. The hoped-for return of Gregorian Chant was scuppered by the insistence on the vernacular, come what may. The Novus Ordo, rightly or wrongly, was interpreted as a template for creativity in which everything was up for grabs. I'm no expert, but ROTR and the idea of mutual enrichment was being used by the Oratorians and others in the 1970s when they used the options allowed in the NO to make their celebrations conform as much as possible to the older Rite, particularly as regards music.

      The situation is too complex to admit of easy solutions. For example, the main problem for the Liturgical Movement was the Low Mass rather than the sung or Solemn Mass. Yet I will guarantee that the average parish Mass in England will be a Low Mass in English accompanied by four hymns chosen by the so-called music director who knows little of Church music.

      ROTR, meaning a Missal which includes the best of both Forms or Rites is now regarded as dead in the water. Those liturgists who advocated it now believe one must go back to 1963 and start again.

      Delete
    4. But the self-obsessive elitism of the 'pelagian' Trads continues.....No wonder Pope Francis calls all this a la mode faddism.

      John Nolan · 1 day ago


      "This is where it has to start, with children. The idea of providing watered-down 'children's liturgies' which persist into secondary schools is disastrous. As soon as they 'put away childish things' they ditch the Mass. And the fact that most Catholic adults are given, Sunday after Sunday, a scarcely less childish 'worship experience' with music that I would have regarded as trite sentimental rubbish even at the age of nine doesn't help."

      Delete
    5. David, thanks for reposting my comment. The subject was, of course, Gregorian chant, described by Vatican II as being 'proper to the Roman Liturgy'. Since most of it was composed by the end of the eighth century it could hardly be described as 'a la mode faddism', not that Pope Francis ever used the term. In the 1970s Latin and chant were distinctly unfashionable, as I recall.

      Once again your unreasoning prejudice impels you to talk out of your fundamental orifice.

      Delete
  35. Hello Richard, This comment is not for publication, but just to let you know that your post as usual was spot on, and that I am absolutely amazed at the number of comments you have had, 90% of them from one or two persons clearly intent on undermining your views and your blog,it has all the signs of a deliberate targeting. Please do not let these worthless and contemptible comments get to you,no doubt easier said than done, but they are not worth a light. You have my 101% support with many, many others, I'm sure. Kind regards, Brian.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Richard,
    More than happy that my earlier comment has been posted.
    Kind regards, Brian.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Mass is Crucial for a Catholic (formerly known as a seeker of truth, a convert to truth or cradle catholic seeking daily conversion in truth). Therefore, if a trusting Catholic attends a crap-protestant experiment call a 'mass' it can be most detrimental - because the whole point of prostestantism is to detroy the Mass/Truth/Real Presence (most don't know it of course 'cause satan likes his pinions to be ignorant) - that is, to 'destroy' (as if they could) the Real Presence, Who promised, "I will be with you till the close of the Age". Therefore, in my dismissable opinion, the biggest reason for apostate Catholics now is an apostate Mass.

    But the unbloody sacrafice will be given up, 'from the rising of the sun till the setting of the same', 'till the close of the Age'. How many Catholics fleeing the boot of satan currently have access to Real Presence? It's not for nothing that roots of the Apostolic Body live where satan's footsolidiers are making way. What's the point in satan defeating himself? None, which is why his end game is the Real Presence. But Christ promised He will be with those who don't give up on Him 'till the end of the age'.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Seems that some ecclesial communities do it with bells on:

    http://www.evangelismcoach.org/2008/10-tips-for-greeters/

    Lord preserve us!

    ReplyDelete
  39. Richard, is all well with you?

    God bless,

    Chris

    ReplyDelete
  40. The most pathetic thing I see in this whole thread is that the argument really is "Those who believe we celebrate as a community, listening to The Word which is then spoken about by the priest presider and then in the Prayer of the Faithful, we pray, as a community, to live the Word. As we move into the Liturgy of the Eucharist, we respond to and acclaim the Reality unfolding before us which we will eat and drink. It's not just "God and me"... you can do that at home. When you come to Holy Assembly, it is to celebrate the two Great commandments, "Love God and love your neighbor" as the community we are called to be. The other folks on this thread want to be LEFT ALONE to make up their own way of praying so that, God forbid, they don't have to interact with ANYONE... except you can do that at home. To use disparaging words to dismiss members of your community, to deny the veracity of Vatican II, to reject our current Pope (and all the other ones back to ST. John XXIII is unthinkable if you want to be Catholic. All of you haters, what you are really doing is saying that you reject the Holy Spirit and that anything that happened since 1958, with the death of Pius XII, you are entitled to reject and still call yourself a Catholic... NO, NO, and NO... I truly hope that somehow all the anger and fear and denial is purged from your heart and you come along and rejoin our Church which is always obliged to read the signs of the times, or risk total irrelevancy... as a highly respected Catholic priest-theologian friend of mine says, "If it's not playing in a theater near you, it's not playing anywhere!"

    ReplyDelete