That's her, with the King of Romania. I guess they just sit around waiting to see if the country's going to restore the monarchy. They're Hohenzollerns, so I guess they're not hurting in the meantime.
Posted on 03/02/2009 9:21:44 AM PST by Pyro7480
His Eminence Roger Card. Mahony of Los Angeles shares his view of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite and, consequently, of the decision two Popes made to emancipate the older, pre-Conciliar form of Holy Mass.
The setting: On Friday, February 27, 2009, at 11:15 a.m. PST, ChurchWerks.com hosted an online chat session with Cardinal Mahony, live from the main Exhibit Hall at the Religious Education Congress in Anaheim, Calif.
Ann Scolari: What are your thoughts on the Trindentine mass?Could not make the transition? What are they, stupid? Have they been lied to?
CardinalMahony: Ann: The Tridentine Mass was meant for those who could not make the transition from Latin to English [or other languages] after the Council. But there is no participation by the people, and I don’t believe that instills the spirit of Christ among us.
No participation by the people? What are they doing there?
Doesn’t instill the spirit of Christ? What is going on there, Your Eminence?
Are Eastern Catholics stupid or not participating or not instilling the Spirit of Christ if they attend the Divine Liturgy in their sacral liturgical language and their mode of participation, shut out by a screen and forced to listen?
WDTPRSers, I put it you now:
Imagine that a bishop, any bishop, might say things about a highly charged topic during a media interview.
Imagine that during Q&A he grossly mischaracterizes something dear and sacred to a group of people, something that touches on their very identity.
Imagine that this imaginary bishop states, in the media, things which are clearly false, even contrary to the teachings of the Church in the Vatican Council and subsequent legislation of Popes.
This imaginary bishop really believes his position to be true, but his statements – however sincerely believed – are deeply offensive to a interested group who have in the past been marginalized and mistreated.
Even people who do not prefer to attend Holy Mass in the older form should be offended by what Card. Mahony said to the world in this online chat.
He slapped our ancestors, Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and everyone who loves our Church’s Holy Mass and Divine Liturgy in all its beautiful, meaningful, sacred and legitimate forms.
But wrenching myself back to the point . . . I hope I made clear that there is a world of difference between outward signs and faith. I know some pretty liturgically loose people (a particular Franciscan priest comes to mind) who are faithful believers and will no doubt be way ahead of me at the Judgment.
On the other hand, outward signs can be a stumbling block (all the cheering and waving) or they can assist in worship. BXVI is hardly a 'traditionalist' in the pejorative sense, but he has written very lucidly about the need for serious thinking about whether certain liturgical customs interfere with the act of worship.
I agree. And the pollster would probably be unaware that Romania doesn’t have a queen at the moment ;-).
That's her, with the King of Romania. I guess they just sit around waiting to see if the country's going to restore the monarchy. They're Hohenzollerns, so I guess they're not hurting in the meantime.
The king looks just like David Brinkley, bless his heart.
I lived through those years, though I was young. (I received my first communion in 1968, and remember the introduction of the new Mass in 1970.)
You have to understand that Catholics before 1960 were taught the faith -- formally and informally -- in a very clear (that's good) manner, but also in a very rigid (hmmm) manner, with a lack of distinction between dogma, doctrine, common theological opinion, discipline, "best practice," pious custom, etc. (and that's bad).
Also, for many of them, their religious training stopped abruptly with confirmation in 8th grade.
(Catholics between about 1960 and 1985 were often taught garbage or nothing, so they are even worse off. That's my generation.)
So when one tiny part of this edifice was suddenly thrown away, it seemed like the whole thing was up for grabs.
For example, my father was an altar boy back in the early 1930's. He was highly scandalized by the idea of receiving the Eucharist from a lay person, because (as he quite correctly noted) he was not even allowed to touch the chalice as an altar boy, but could only handle it through the veil.
At one point, I remember him saying flatly that receiving Communion from a layperson was no different than eating a cracker; IOW, he was embracing the (completely heretical) idea that the efficacy of the Host depended on the minister who gave it to you!
In the 1960's and 70's, a "tiny part of this edifice" was not thrown away, huge chunks of it were tossed out overnight. (Go to an indult Tridentine Mass at an FSSP parish sometime, and imagine going from that to a tacky, irreverent Novus Ordo in barely 10 years, and you'll see what I mean.)
Because of the lack of distinction that had been made during their catechesis between different levels of teaching and practice, people erroneously assumed that, if lots of liturgical custom and practice could be thrown out, lots of moral theology could also be thrown out (and shortly would be).
I haven't read the article (can you link or post it?), but I'm curious how the poll defined "traditionalist Catholic".
Good explanation. Thanks for taking the time. (I didn’t realize you were that much older ... ;-)
My parents were (Protestant) children in the 1930’s and 40’s, and both knew plenty of Catholics. Dad was even engaged to one, around 1955! Neither of them remembers any of their peers’ being able to explain why they did or believed any of the things non-Catholics noticed as being different. That seems to me to reflect a significant failure in what is now presented as a Golden Age.
As a first-generation Catholic product of the John Paul II years, I’ve missed a lot of historical turmoil and baggage! I’m sure I’ve also missed plenty that was beneficial, but I don’t, subjectively, miss it because it was never a part of my or my family’s experience.
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6497
The site indicates that there’s also an interview with the author there somewhere, so it might give more information.
I wonder if Brinkley was a Hohenzollern . . . .
Yeah, I'm a dinosaur. I remember people being appalled that gasoline had hit 40 cents a gallon. What will we do? Where will we go?
(After all, tomorrow ... is another day. But I digress ...)
Neither of them remembers any of their peers’ being able to explain why they did or believed any of the things non-Catholics noticed as being different. That seems to me to reflect a significant failure in what is now presented as a Golden Age.
Yup ... catechetical clericalism. In fact, the correct answer to "why do you do or believe those things?" is always, "Because Father (or Sister) said to." Now Father may be a heart-of-gold wonderful paragon of priestly virtue and orthodoxy ... but what if he isn't?
And what if Father said to do X last week, but this week we're implementing the latest "liturgical reform" and Father says to do "not X"?
You can see how disorienting things became for many Catholics in that era. And much of the liturgical disorientation was so unnecessary -- the Mass envisioned by Vatican II was somewhere between that indult FSSP Tridentine Mass and what you see on EWTN. (Yes, I'm saying that EWTN may be *less* traditional than what VC 2 envisioned.)
Instead, things went very far out in left field very fast, and have (in fits and starts) been drifting back.
I’m sure I’ve also missed plenty that was beneficial, but I don’t, subjectively, miss it because it was never a part of my or my family’s experience.
Take in some more traditional liturgies when you have the chance. It's an acquired taste (especially the Latin Mass), but it "grows on you".
A big part of our family vacations (if we're passing through a bigger city) is scouting out neat churches ... Anglican Use, indult Tridentine, Byzantine Rite, Maronite Rite ... it's great to be Catholic. :-)
(If you ever make it back to San Antonio, Our Lady of the Atonement Anglican Use is one of those "Lord, it is good for us to be here ... let us erect three booths ..." experiences. You don't want to leave.)
Looks like it might be a bit of an outlier.
Could be. And of course, any self-described Christian's voting for Infanticide Obama is a scandal. But when the persecution comes ...
We’ve been to “St. Michael’s By the Sea” in Garden City, SC, a couple of times. It’s harmless, if you survive the parking lot. And my husband and some kids have been to St. Timothy’s in The Villages, home of a bazillion old people including my parents. Other than that, our vacations generally have us back home on Sunday.
I’ve heard Atonement is a great church, but if we ever make it back to S.A. on a visit, we’ll have to go to St. Francis of Assisi, where we joined the Church.
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.