Posted on 01/31/2009 3:13:02 PM PST by NYer
It would be interesting to read the original book by the real-life governess, Maria von Trapp, to see just how far Hollywood departed from reality in the film starring Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer. However, we need not know the original to see what Hollywood has done!
In fact, the Bishop might have made a much stronger case by noting how the film did depart from reality&mdas. I haven't read Family on Wheels, but have read Maria (the prequel) a few years back, and that, along with the Bishop's comments, was enough to make me dig around on the net and find the information that I tried to link to in post 18 www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2005/winter/von-trapps.html .
As it stands, the film is good when compared with what passes for entertainment now days, but the Bishop does seem to have valid points in that history is altered for the sake of promoting an agenda, and the more one is aware of the history, the more the agenda is apparent. The Catholic children's author Hilda van Stockum, who was a friend of the Von Trapps, walked out of the Sound of Music because of the way it had altered things (I have this from one of Mrs. van Stockum’s granddaughters). In fairness, I ought to add, that, while friends, Mrs. van Stockum found Mrs. Von Trapp to be rather cantankerous (the link also notes the trait) and apparently found Julie Andrews to be the thing hardest to stomach.
Another instance of Hollywood making what passes for a decent movie that actually tilts social mores left is Yours, Mine, and Ours—which I really liked in the original form until I read the book upon which it is based, Who Gets the Last Drumstick? Thanks to this evening, I suspect that I will read Family on Wheels and never want to see the Sound of Music again.
While we can debate how Hollywood portrays historical events (given that movies don’t run in real time, and in The Sound of Music’s case the vista of the Alps is much better than the reality of leaving by train, as film is a visual medium), I think the most offensive part of the Bishop’s letter is his trite dismissal of the Nazi reigime as merely “nasty.” But given his denial of the Holocaust we shouldn’t expect anything less, I guess.
Anyone who gets their history from film or television deserves to get an F on their exam. After seeing a fact-based film, for example, the first thing I do when I get home is to do more research to fill in the gaps.
I couldn’t watch a film on TV with my dad that featured railroading—he worked for the Southern Pacific for 30 years, and would point out the flaws in every scene.
Regardless of what they may have said, I would think a Catholic should take far greater offense at what some other "separated brethren" may have been taught about the Immaculate Conception and the role of the Papacy, let alone the sacramental validity of the Roman Canon, than at anyone who might criticize some aspect of some document of Vatican II.
But that's just me. Perhaps you sing hymns related to teachings from Inter Mirifica at the Masses you attend?
From what I understand, the Bishop does not deny the holocaust per se, but holds two positions contrary to the historically orthodox position (1) that the six million figure normally used for Jewish deaths is unduly high (I have seen one post stating that he holds that this is off by a full order of magnitude) and (2) that gas chambers were not the method used for execution, at least for the Jews. However, short of seeing the unedited footage of the original interview, the only way Bishop Williamson has to demonstrate his views are more moderate than they are portrayed is to speak again on the issue—but if they deviate at all from historical orthodoxy, they will be misconstrued in the same way.
No serious follower of Archbishop Lefebvre would deny the existence of the death camps, as the Archbishop's own father, a strong monarchist, died in one in 1944 after having been sent there for his work for the French resistance. (Discoverable by reading the first paragraph after the two paragraph summary of the Archbishop's bio on wikipedia). Of course, while this is a somewhat relevant fact, I think I've seen it pointed out once in perhaps 500 posts I've seen on the topic. That Bishop Williamson believes that at least hundreds of thousands of Jews died in concentration camps is something that most posters on various forums (and reporters) seem to miss.
Most of the changes from history were made in the Broadway musical, starring Mary Martin and Theodore Bikel, which naturally had fewer outdoor scenes.
Having lived through the same experience, I can truly empathize with your comments. At no time, however, do I ever recall a pastor teaching this from the pulpit. They simply implemented the changes, some more rapidly than others, over the span of several decades. Like most catholics, I never questioned it until I arrived in this forum and someone challenged me to read the documents of VCII. What you and I have experienced is an interpretation of those documents. They were written to address the needs of catholics worldwide - not just in the US.
None of this has anything to do with the SSPX whose founder chose to dissent with the Council and the authority of the pope. That is the crux of the problem. One might rightly be appreciative to the sspx for retaining the TLM but not their dissent.
That said, the parishs in which I have lived for most of the last forty-five years taught me that the documents of Vatican II had: Outlawed Latin;
Having lived through the same experience, I can truly empathize with your comments. At no time, however, do I ever recall a pastor teaching this from the pulpit.
I have, though perhaps in not so many words.
Some U.S. dioceses did in fact outlaw latin, beginning with Baltimore in ‘64 or ‘65. (There was a period for phasing out, but it was fairly quick.)
You asked me the question and I answered you.
Not all teaching comes from the pulpit.
Those of us who value Tradition and the Latin Mass owe the SSPX folks big time.
There are members of SSPX that have been for years saying that Pope John Paul II was the Anti-Christ, along with Pope Benedict. These are a few radical elements in the SSPX group. But the schism has hurt the society.
In terms of history, the Tridentine Rite did cause trouble in India. When the Portuguese arrived after the English, they were able to bring the Saint Thomas Christians in communion with the Roman Catholic Church.
These Saint Thomas Christians of Kerelya province in India had 7 Churches established one of Jesus' original twelve apostles.
Since the time of Christ (or rather the time that the Apostle Thomas the doubter converted them), these people said Mass in the vernacular of the people. They did have a Mar Thomas (Syrian Bishop) sent to them around the 4th or 5th Centuries after one of the early Church Councils.
Enforcing the Tridentine Rite (the rite used by SSPX) caused schism with these Christians of India in around the year 1500. I believe two of the original 7 churches broke away with Rome and are still part of the Syro-Malobar Church (spelling/accuracy?).
To base your religion just on the Tridentine Rite is wrong. To base your religion on precepts and beliefs that prevent liberal, bad influences in the church is good.
There is both good and bad in SSPX just as there is both good and bad in the Vatican II movement. Vatican II has allowed errors to enter the Church, which is why SSPX is popular.
SSPX has good, solid seminaries. I assure you will not hear rock 'n roll, rap music, and other nonsense in the SSPX seminaries which has been going on in American seminaries since the 1960s.
There are things Rome can learn from SSPX. And there are probably things that SSPX can pick up from Rome and other traditional elements of the Church.
One example of good done by SSPX is that vestments that were going to be discarded by Saint Patrick's Cathedral in New York was picked up by the tiny SSPX community in Saint Marys, Kansas. Many of the vestments were handstiched by nuns pre-Vatican II and are beautiful vestments.
Jumping to the conclusion that the Archdiocese of Boston will be unfair to this group is not wrong in my opinion.
The English Bishop who made such terrible comments about the Holocaust is the one who has given SSPX the black eye -- not the Archdiocese of Boston.
In Atlanta, the SSPX church was advertising that it was a Catholic Church. During the time of the schism, they were just the SSPX and outside the Catholic Church, so that was false advertising with the Phone Company. Even though I had family members in St Marys, Kansas, I complained to the Phone Company about this advertising.
It could advertise as a former Catholic Church group that performs the Tridentine Rite for Mass...
At that time, the Archdiocese of Atlanta had established a Tridentine rite only Parish -- Saint Francis de Sales.
The SSPX Church actually rented space in a hotel for its Sunday Services and it went by the name of Saint Michaels...
Adding the phrase based on a true story is more accurate.
There are some chilling tales about Nazi Germany, but it is not like it was in the movie... The movie changes the timeline to fit a movie versus what happened in the true story. The book would explain that better than I can.
The Von Trapp family did not have to escape from Germany, as shown in the film. They basically just immigrated to America, but had trouble getting permission to permanently stay in America.
Maria Von Trapp wrote a book about her experience.
Story of the Trapp Family Singers [Hardcover]1981
By Maria Augusta Von Trapp
ISBN-10 : 0397000189
ISBN-13 : 9780397000180
Publisher : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
There is also a paperback version of the book published in 1957.
Agreed. But neither of you answered my question. Did you ever read the documents from Second Vatican Council?
You hadn’t asked me. I’ve read all 16 multiple times,and incorporated lumen gentium, sacrosanctum concilium, and dei verbum into courses multiple times. pardon caps—am holding baby.
That isn’t the question you asked me.
But now that you are asking, I read these documents when they became more readily available (in the mid-’70s).
I was hotter than a firecracker when I found out what they REALLY said.
Then why spend almost 20 paragraphs beating up strawmen under the false headline "I disagree"?
“I guess nobody cares how offended I am that over 70% of the U.S. Jewish community voted for an American hating, Israel hating, Iran loving, socialist for president. Perhaps I’m less concerned about the holocaust than the coming catastrophe of a nuclear armed Iran. After Nov 4th, I must say couldn’t care less how they feel about Pope Benedict XVI.”
You are generalizing. There are more Jews in the world than just those in America. There is all of Israel, and believe me, they know better than anyone how precarious their situation is over there surrounded by the Arab countries that want them exterminated. Who do you think will be the first affected by the coming catastrophe of a nuclear armed Iran. That’s right, Israel. It would be their second holocaust. So, because there are a bunch of leftist Jews in this country whose ideology trumps their loyalties to Israel and their religious roots, that does not abrogate the threat to Israel’s very existence. Israeli Jews are not disemodied American leftist Jews. And what the SSPX’er jerk Bishop said about the Jews was unconscionable and impossible to justify by any Catholic.
1. The Pope ex-ex-communicated a bishop. No Catholic is justifying the Bishop’s comments. It allows the bishop (necessarily a sinner) access to the sacraments (including reconciliation). He may need them more than most.
2. I haven’t heard outrage from any Jewish community over the election of Obama.
3. Those Jewish leaders feigning offense at Pope Benedict and being silent about the Obama administration should be ignored.
4. The MSM never misses an opportunity to throw dirt at the Vatican, they could very well have manufactured this “outrage.”
When the Mass was standardized after the Council of Trent, all Rites that at that time had been celebrated for more than 200 years were able to continue. So, if the Catholic Churches in India had had their own Rite, they would have been able to continue using it.
Look, do you support the Holy Father's project to unexcommunicate the four bishops and reunite with the SSPX, or do you dissent from it like Hans Kung?
Archbishop O’Malley has every right and, indeed, a duty to question the caliber of leadership of the SSPX because the Society has spent the last 40 years rejecting the legitimacy and teachings of an ecumenical council. While modernists have clearly mischaracterized the Second Vatican Council and used it as an excuse to advance their own agenda in the Church, that does NOT excuse the SSPX from its own sins. The fact that Bishop Williamson denies the reality of the Holocaust, which is a historical fact, means that he’s either ignorant (which I doubt) or anti-Semitic. Either way, I would question the theological competence as well as the integrity of someone who refuses to believe the truth.
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.