Posted on 11/04/2004 9:21:48 AM PST by Mershon
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Catholic Alternative History Thread
A reader writes:
You should proclaim a contest for a Catholic Science Fiction short story, scenario or story outline..
The theme: Vatican II never happens.
The exercise: start in 1959 and extrapolate forward from "actual" current events and trends in Church spirituality, governance and culture at that point in time and weave an altentate history of the Catholic Church, al la Henry Turtledove or Paoul Anderson.
Examples of Catholic alternate history "counterfactuals":
a. The Tridentine Latin Mass is preserved, but as a "dialogue Mass" ((congregational responses to the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, etc) and the process of liturgical/cultural levelling up continues;, )
b. The biblical revival already underway in the 50's continues but, instead of being hijacked for liberation theology soundbites, it comes to serve to butress a Hebraic, neo-patriarchal, father-metaphor mindset which assures that every Seminary is a "gay-free" zone. Paul Shanley leaves the "hostile environment" of his seminary and opens a boutique.
c. The opposition to Communism under Pius X!! continues unabated into the reign of his successor (not Roncalli), without any detours into dialogue, and Solidarity gets off the ground in Poland 10 years earlier.
I am somewhat uncomfortable with this exercise because it essentially encourages to think we are smarter than the Holy Spirit. The fact is, the Spirit called the Council, so it was the best thing that could have happened and attempts by cranky conservatives to pretend otherwise, even in fun, strike me as toying with dissent. Personally, I think any "what if V2 never happened" scenario that doesn't end in catastrophe for the Church is bound to be false. I think that, had it not been for the Council, the cultural winds which hit the Church over the past 40 years would have made the Church *everywhere* into the crumpled Potemkin Village that, say, Quebec Catholicism turned out to be. The considerable vigor that the Church still retains is, despite the anti-V2 fulminations of Faithful Conservative Catholics[TM], largely due to the Council, I think.
Okay, let the screaming begin! posted by Mark Shea at 9:17 PM
>>The New Mass is the direct result of the process set in motion by Sacrosanctum Concilium. A preliminary version of the New Mass was already introduced in 1964 while Vatican II was only halfway over, and it certainly represents both "the spirit of Vatican II" and "the spirit of the New Mass." So the council fathers had plenty of time to complain if they thought that their program was being taken off track. A very few did complain, like Cardinal Heenan, the primate of England. The rest were only too eager to go along with the revolution, including such luminaries as Bishop Fulton Sheen in Rochester.<<
And let's no forget Archbishop Lefebvre!
Sriously, no, the N.O. mass is not a necessary conclusion of Vatican II. It may be considered a fruit of the council, but was not a part of the council. The distinction is very necessary.
To me this sounds a lot like the old phrase about "a distinction without a difference." Why do you say the distinction is necessary, and what is significant about it?
I would agree with your phrase "the fruit of the council." As we all know, "A good tree does not bear bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit."
Oh, I am quite certain that the Bugnini Committee and Pope Paul VI thought they were approving a liturgy in conformity with Sacrosactum Concilium. Perhaps they had forgotten to read the document. Or perhaps disobedient bishops using communion in the hand, under both species, altar girls, facing the people, lay lectors, women lay lectors, etc. etc. were not foreseen by either Pope Paul VI or Sacrosactum Concilium, as these things happened after the missal (which is defective compared to the 1962 missal) was issued.
Yeah. Communion under both kinds, or in the hand, certainly didn't work in the early Church, I guess.
And allowing lay people to read at Mass are certainly an abomination, as is having a woman anywhere near the sanctuary, unless she's scrubbing the floors.
"Yeah. Communion under both kinds, or in the hand, certainly didn't work in the early Church, I guess.
"And allowing lay people to read at Mass are certainly an abomination, as is having a woman anywhere near the sanctuary, unless she's scrubbing the floors."
The comment in context meant that these things were going on in the U.S. and elsewhere against the express will of the Holy Father for several years. Their intransigent disobedience to liturgical norms became the norm thereafter. My point had to do with the fact that the Missal of 1970, as aberrant as it was, was in no way as weird as all of the novelties that followed it, which may not have been envisioned by Pope Paul VI or John Paul II. That is the point, "Deacon." So much for agreeing with you today, "Deacon."
Hey, did you go to Wake Forest? They are the Demon Deacons.
On this point, it isn't just a matter of greater lay participation and/or a "democratization" in the Church. It's a matter of separating the sacred from the profane. The sanctuary is where the Blessed Sacrament is consecrated and kept. Only the priest and those assisting the priest should be allowed in there during its use. Those assisting the priest should reflect the traditional nature of the priesthood, which is male.
>>To me this sounds a lot like the old phrase about "a distinction without a difference."<<
Then you're obviously not worth me wasting my time on.
Your last sentence is illogical. Unless every person who assists the priest is an ordained acolyte or ordained lector, he should not be in the sanctuary.
If the Church allows unordained assistants in the sanctuary, then whether those assistants are male or female is irrelevant.
I do not wish to redirect the thread to a discussion of dialogue masses, but I think I have to clarify something.
I have no problem with an organ playing at low Mass, so long as it is in tune and not playing something which detracts from the Mass. I have no problem with a choir singing, when they are singing in a way that enhances the Mass and doesn't draw attention away from the the beauty of what is taking place.
The dialogue Mass, though, often ends up being more distracting. It is like going to a concert where the highly trained and talented orchestra is playing beautiful music, and the person in the seat behind you decides to play along on his kazoo, or decided to bring his trumpet from home to enhance the concert somehow. Even if he was playing beautifully, it would be very distracting unless he was out of the crowd and sitting with the rest of the orchestra where his playing blends in to the harmony. If a person is talented enough to contribute positively to the beautification of the Mass, they should do so by going up to the choir loft. If not, they are just the man sitting in the crowd with a kazoo.
That said, I realize Pius XII allowed it. For one thing, there is a difference between allowing and mandating. For another thing, that doesn't necessarily mean it was a good idea. As I said before, I think this was one of the steps to a misunderstanding of participation in the Mass. I don't know too many people who are ardently for a return to the Traditional Mass who appreciate a dialogue Mass.
"If the Church allows unordained assistants in the sanctuary, then whether those assistants are male or female is irrelevant."
One of these days, it has to happen...one of these days, you're gonna have to get sick and tired of being wrong about everything.
Either that, or you're going to find yourself standing on a floor paved with the skulls of bad bishops, and a red-hot trident up the kazoo.
dsc, you are a very strange human being.
Proud to be thought so by you.
"Or perhaps disobedient bishops using communion in the hand, under both species, altar girls, facing the people, lay lectors, women lay lectors, etc. etc. were not foreseen by either Pope Paul VI"
What ever happened to those stories about Pope Paul VI speaking out against VatII and the NO on his deathbed?
I have heard of Pope John XXIII allegedly on his deathbed saying "Stop the Council! Stop the Council!" But I don't know if this has ever been confirmed.
Never heard any of this on Pope Paul VI.
Information overload.
I've got so much stuff copied to hard disk that I can't find anything.
Never heard any of this on Pope Paul VI.
Those "stories" are apocryphal.
"Death bed" proclamations are largely ego-driven embellishments.
Whoops, there's our seagull poster.
Flies in, squawks, poops all over everything, then flies out again.
Weird.
Plop...plop...plop.
Those "stories" are apocryphal.
"Death bed" proclamations are largely ego-driven embellishments."
And I am sure you have first-hand information that verifies this.
Brian
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.