Posted on 08/13/2008 9:45:56 AM PDT by Pyro7480
...Like it or not, discourse among a great many Traditionalists is filled with anger and contempt for Catholics who do not share their... interest in traditional forms of piety.
So while I've never seen a Clown Mass, I have encountered lots of angry Trads who have compared the Paul VI rite to a Black Mass, made clear that "Novus Ordo types" are second class Catholics... and generally made their claims to be the Guardians of True Catholicism so repellent that I wouldn't touch the Faith with a barge pole if they were the True Apostles of it they claim to be. And that experience is not just mine....
In much the same way that I think Muslims need to stop whining about how people perceive Islam and focus instead on why so many people have such similar perceptions, so too I think not a few Traditionalist Catholics should focus more energy on changing whatever it is in their sub-sector of the Church that leaves so many of us with such a bad taste in our mouths.
When the outsider's principal experience of Traditionalism is of repeated and frequent encounters with mean people who are perpetually angry... he is not going to feel any obligation or interest whatsoever in "understanding the things we care about." Telling outsiders to Traditionalism that they need to overlook their experience and stop talking about what they have actually seen and heard will be about as successful as Muslim attempts to force people to not notice the less-than-lovely face that the Religion of Peace shows the world.
Is clinging to anger more important to Traditionalists than actually winning hearts and minds to their cause? If so, then their agenda is doomed and they have paradoxically abandoned the worship of God in the name of liturgical purity.
(Excerpt) Read more at insidecatholic.com ...
Catholic ping!
What would dude do if he met Jeremiah?!
He did it right. Back when I was on Catholic Answers Forums, people like me (I called myself a historic Catholic) was a traditionalist with a small “t”. We wanted an historic Catholic mass with no innovation.
Those who wanted a TLM only, SSPX, SSPV and the like were Capitalized Traditionalists. Some of them can be, shall we say, “strong”.
It appears that Shea doesn't understand the Traditionalists and waxes a bit "elitist" in assuming he can teach them his lesson.
I don’t think everyone knows/understands that distinction. Also, the key word you used is “some.” Some Latin Mass-devotees can have that tendency.
Bingo.
Jeremiah probably wouldn't lecture him about how he was a heathen for using a 1962 Missal instead of a 1954 Missal.
I belonged to a Trad chapel for a few years and the most striking thing was not anger, but their fear of ridicule.
Those who started this Chapel endured years of community scorn, but have finally been accepted as simply another way to hear the Mass and receive our Lord.
Admittedly, they place a great deal of emphasis on rubrics and on other aspects of respect for the Eucharist, i.e., dress, deportment, proper participation, silence, that is missing in many cases in Novus Ordo Masses.
Mark Shea is a little too strident in his condemnation. Other than a rather loud, “ssssshhhhh,” from a very old lady, I haven’t noticed any particularly violent attacks on visitors to a Trad Mass. Comparing them to Muslims is shameful.
>>I think not a few Traditionalist Catholics should focus more energy on changing whatever it is in their sub-sector of the Church<<
Obviously, he knows not of what he speaks. I’ve tried that approach of changing from within and it is just like dealing with Liberals in everyday society. Twenty-five years ago I was trying to retain the sanctity of Catholic practices. Everybody from the Cardinal to the bishops to the priests and yes the clowns too laughed at my attempts.
So walk a mile in my shoes, if you can.
Step back, wait for the incoming, throw it back, then ignore.
LOL! So you agree?
This chapel is under the direction of the Diocese and has a dispensation for the Latin Mass.
Well, I think he should be more careful about distinguishing the focus of his criticism. I like the distinction drawn above: I’m certainly a traditionalist Catholic, but I’m not some kind of card-carrying Traditionalist, let alone a sedevacantist or that other stuff.
>>Some Latin Mass-devotees can have that tendency.<<
That’s true, but I’ve also know some liberal Catholics to be worse! Nothing traditional allowed. Tabernacle off to the side, handholding, laity using the orans, no mention of Mary, no devotionals. AND something is wrong with you if you want ANYTHING traditional. Sheesh
Agree!
The big problem today is that catholic doesn't mean anything today.
The American catholic Church needs to be brought to heel by Pope Benedict as it is not supposed to be a loose franchise granted by Rome.
As I've stated before, European Roman Catholic Churches allow no communion given in the communicant's hand. There are no lay distributors. There are no lay lectors.
The priest doesn't merely 'preside' he is the representative of Christ. He faces away from the congregation and prays to God, not to the congregants. And further, when the faithful quietly enter the sanctuary one is given the distinct impression that something important happens here. It's not like the Elks.
My wife is Catholic, my 4 daughters are in CCD (or will be shortly), I'm not.
We ran into a traditionalist at a reception last weekend. She and my wife got to talking, and she invited my wife to mass at her church.
It turns out, she doesn't recognize the bishop of our diocese, she believes all the masses said under his ordinary jurisdiction are invalid, that there is no real pope (or that there may be one who is in hiding, but in any event, it's not B16).
The priest at her church is "independent" but says the mass in latin.
Now, to me, it appears that this theory of the church is not dissimilar to LDS theology - that there has been some sort of occultation of the church which needs restoration by a small remnant.
If this were true, wouldn't it mean that the gates of Hell had in fact prevailed?
Just asking.
How can we thank them for building structures that look like airplane hangars with nothing in them but a concrete picnic table? Where and what are confessionals?
The 'priest' makes certain that what passes for the homily doesn't offend any sinners.
That “traditionalist” sounds like a sedevacantist — someone who thinks the See of Peter, meaning the Papal Office, has been vacant since the Pius XII, possibly even before, and that all subsequent popes have been false popes.
She's a sedevacantist. They have gone to the edge of the world and fallen off. Another name for them is "Protestant".
Avoid such persons.
I don't believe for a minute that he has met "lots of" these angry people. And Muslims? G'wan! I never heard of even a sedevacantist who wanted to cut anybody's head off.
He's exaggerating for effect, and failing to distinguish between those who (like me) prefer things the old-fashioned way and those who deny the authority of the Church and even the Pope himself.
Like I said up thread, there's another name for folks like that -- Protestants!
In my old parish, our confessionals were turned into storage closets.
I have to give a plug here. My favorite Priest just returned to Nigeria. Now if you wanted to hear fire and brimstone, Father Norbert was your man.
He preached at our 6:30pm mass and offended many a person, stating that living together, contreception and homosexuality were pure evil to a congregation that included many visitors (who never heard this stuff)
One of the first sermons I heard him preach was on standing up for Jesus. After 30 minutes of a rousing homily, he looked at us and said, “Stand up. Stand up for Jesus!” then he lowered his voice and added, “Otherwise you will be saying ‘Allah Akbar.’”
Mouths dropped and from that moment, I loved that man.
If anyone has a few prayers for Fr. Norbert and his family members he is returning to, pass them his way. We need more like him.
The lady you're describing is a sedevacantist schismatic (and that term may or may not describe the chapel she attends, but it's certainly irregular at best).
Their ecclesiology isn't exactly like the LDS. They don't think the True Church disappeared for a time and had to be "restored". They think that they're the True Church, and are in continuity with the Church pre-Vatican II, but that the visible "reigns of power" in Rome have subsequently been usurped by people who aren't real Catholics.
Logically, they ought to go further and elect an anti-Pope (and some have done exactly that), because otherwise they're put in the rather odd situation of believing that the Papacy as an office was divinely instituted. but has now sort of disappeared, or gone on an indefinite hiatus.
Mark is a convert from evangelicalism, a Catholic apologist, and a writer. (Also a friend of mine. :-))
and why is he so mad at traditional Catholics?
There's a certain subset of traditional Catholics, some of whom are de jure inside the Church (and some of whom aren't), who are more "traditional" than charitable. I would read his remarks as applying to them, not to the vast majority of Catholics who would think of themselves as "traditional Catholics" (of which I am one).
I believe this is the kind of priest I would admire!
and it is just like dealing with Liberals in everyday society
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is where we trust in God and don’t expect it to be done on our time but His.
His exaggerations and his comparison of traditionalists to Muslims are highly offensive.
And I'm just a retread Episcopalian with a liking for Latin, not a die-hard traditionalist in any sense of the word. I attend a quite normal (if also quite orthodox) Ordinary Rite parish in a suburb of Atlanta. We throw in a little Latin from time to time and have very traditional music, but this is no nest of sedevacantists.
So if it offends me it's way too strong and he has missed his target completely.
I have encountered Traditionalists who are angry loons.
I was once invited to a conference given by a traditionalist priest in the home of a friend of mine. I knew several of the people there because we attended the TLM together. It turned out the priest had recently struck up a working relationship (for lack of a better term) with the SSPX. When a couple who had lost their daughter to SSPX (she ceased contact with them because they were NOT SSPX) and I gently tried to explain what we knew about SSPX from personal experience he denounced me - in front of the 30 people assembled there including a number of my friends - as a tool of the Devil. He ranted and raved. To tell you the truth I wasn’t horrified like my friends were for me. I thought the whole thing was actually rather funny. Again, my friends were horrified. The host apologized over and over again. I tried to talk to the priest when we took a break but he just went off on me again. I couldn’t help but laugh.
The host told me a year later that the priest - who is a relatively well known author among traditionalists - had told him to tell me I was right about SSPX. He had learned the truth that, although there are many fine people and priests in SSPX, there is a terrible problem with the SSPX itself.
Yeah, I’m a Traditionalist, and yeah, I know there are some bitter, angry, crazy Traditionalists out there. Look at the wackos who follow “Pius XIII”! Sheesh!
Tough to know what Jeremiah would focus on right now. We all think we are Jeremiah I guess. But tack of trying to eliminate all passionate voices as ‘angry’ is another leftist ploy to reduce us all to pablum for the socialist chewing.
You’re #27 is on target!
You’re = your.
But they are in a distinct minority, and not to be confused with folks who have tried the old ways and "hold fast to that which is good."
This sort of blanket condemnation of anybody who likes to hear the Extraordinary Rite occasionally does no good, and much harm.
My Grammar Policeman must have been asleep - I didn’t even notice the apostrophe til you pointed it out!
There are certainly two kinds of traditionalists. The last year’s Motu Proprio was a good litmus test: some cheered it and asked for more; others reacted angrily. www.traditio.com, for example, printed a photo of the Pope with devil horns in response.
Also, the author did not compare them to Muslims in terms of opposition to Christianity; he said that when enough of one’s own kind project anger, the entire image suffers, and gave the misfortune of the moderate Muslims having an image problem as an example.
Yes, it is, but so are devil’s horns photoshopped on Benedict XVI or blasphemous references to the Novus Ordo Mass — not the liturgical abuse, mind you, but the Mass itself. I have seen both.
I think he’d do better recognizing the positive contribution that SSPX made to the traditionalist cause, but for a short polemical article I think he has a point.
I agree. I love the TLM and know it has been a wonderful thing for me.
“That’s true, but I’ve also know some liberal Catholics to be worse! Nothing traditional allowed. Tabernacle off to the side, handholding, laity using the orans, no mention of Mary, no devotionals. AND something is wrong with you if you want ANYTHING traditional. Sheesh”
That’s what we have here. Mention anything — anything at all — and you get the same reaction you would at for coming out against abortion at a NARAL convention.
And I’m talking about the priests, too. The bishop just reinstated another molester priest in a parish.
I’m so sorry.
If you’re ever around southeast MI, I can take you to my parish. You would love it.
Mark Shea...yawn.
Please keep your elbows off the table.
Instead of this:
Now we have a Pope Benedict XVI who has given his full endorsement and approval to reinstating our 1962 Latin liturgy throughout the world. Guess what? Many more Catholics are now much more happy!
Deo Gratias!
Be careful what you promise. I may actually be out there in the next year or two.
Our parish is wonderfully orthodox (the parish newsletter just published a piece about why you shouldn't hold hands during the Our Father - while cautioning people to be charitable to visitors!) and our music is extraordinary.
Our music director has a doctorate in organ performance from Juilliard, and he can play anything. And does. Example: when I heard the postlude at the Papal Mass at St. Patrick's, it sounded like a French 20th c. composer to me but I couldn't place it. I asked our music director, but he hadn't heard the end of the service. So I E-mailed the music director at St. Patrick's (take the bull by the horns! it's surprising how often it works!) and got an almost immediate reply that it was "Tu Es Petrus" by the 20th c. French organ composer Henri Mulet. Passed the word to our music director at Wednesday night choir practice, he of course knew who Mulet was and gave us a capsule biography. And guess what the postlude was on Sunday? Yep, he just knocked it out with 2 days' rehearsal, wasn't even breathing hard . . . . and it's tough - give a listen here.
We sing Gregorian chant, Renaissance and medieval polyphony (with special attention to the English Renaissance composers like Byrd, Tallis, Farrant, etc.), and the good moderns.
I was worried about leaving the Episcopalian music scene -- they may be heretics but their musical taste is impeccable and they take their church music very seriously. But I need not have worried - Our Lady and St. Cecilia looked after us!
Dern, I was just in Atlanta a couple of weeks ago.
...and hold greater resentment for being deprived of the faith.
They say whether you're going to Heaven or Hell, you have to change planes in Atlanta.
It does have the same basic structure . .. .
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.