Posted on 07/15/2003 2:07:08 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
It was worth reading the previous 78 posts to get to your fine distillation.
That, as well as disciplines, liturgical practices, language style, theological methods, etc. In other words, any tradition, sanctioned by Rome, that is not per se irreformable.
Anything that is not irreformable, is reformable.
The only thing essential in the Mass is the consecration and communion. Still, the Church Fathers and doctors all venerated inessential things such as the Roman Canon, offertory, Gregorian Chant, and the like. Up until Vatican 2, the Church always treated old, universally-practed and papally sanctioned inessentials with the utmost reverence, reforming them only rarely and incrimentally. Never before the 1960's was there such a radical and rapid purge of such inessentials. The post-Vatican 2 reforms are totally unprecidented.
Of course. We agree on this. The point is that before Vatican 2, the Church treated even reformable traditions, provided they were old and sanctioned, with reverence and changed them only rarely and incrimentally. The magnitude and scope of the changes to such traditions during and since Vatican 2 are unprecidented.
True. The Church should have allowed the Tridentine Mass to continue to be offered, alongside the Novus Ordo. That was a big mistake.
But non-essentials are non-essentials. Jesus tried to rid the Judaism of his day of silly laws and observances and strictures and requirements. "Strain at gnats and swallow camels."
But, those who wished to hang on to the non-essentials after Vatican II should have been allowed to do so.
The traditional Catholic does not automatically assume that "the new" is bad, but rather treats the "new" with more suspicion than "the old." "The new", being new, has not stood the test of time. "The new" is typically the product of the wisdom of men in one age; "The old" is the product of the wisdom of men from many ages. That's why up until Vatican 2, the Church never made rapid or radical changes to long-established traditions, be they disciplinary, liturgical, theological, or even practical. Where there is a doubt, "the old" gets the benefit.
No, the mistake was fabricating a liturgy that so abruptly breaks with the past and lends itself so easily to abuse. Never in the history of the Church was there such a radical reform of the liturgy in such a short peroid of time, and the results of the post-Vatican 2 reform illustrate so perfectly the wisdom of the pre-Vatican 2 Popes in resisting such reform.
But non-essentials are non-essentials.
For the last time, yes. This is not about whether it is possible to change non-essentials. It is about whether it is wise to change long-established non-essentials quickly and radically. I, along with nearly every pre-Vatican 2 Pope, say it is not. The last 30 years of the Church prove it is not.
Jesus tried to rid the Judaism of his day of silly laws and observances and strictures and requirements. "Strain at gnats and swallow camels."
Paul VI was not Jesus.
Well, I disagree, and I think the number of Catholics who would agree with me far outnumbers those who would agree with you.
And that doesn't count John Paul II, who agrees with me as well.
See, many traditionalists would like to do what was done in the 60s; that is, reimpose the Tridentine Rite and suppress the Novus Ordo.
That is not going to happen, traditionalist, nor should it.
But a much more generous use of the Tridentine Rite should be given.
The Church is not a democracy. BTW, where's the "New Springtime" we've been promised for so long?
And that doesn't count John Paul II, who agrees with me as well.
He's irrationally attached to the Vatican 2 revolution because he was a part of it.
Anyway, I've got St. Pius X, Blessed Pius IX, Leo XIII, and countless other Pontiffs agreeing with me that radical change of disciplines, liturgical practices, etc is a bad idea.
See, many traditionalists would like to do what was done in the 60s; that is, reimpose the Tridentine Rite and suppress the Novus Ordo.
I don't personally know any traditionalists who actually believe this. I certainly don't. Radical change is usually a bad idea, even if it means undoing previous radical change.
That is not going to happen, traditionalist, nor should it.
But a much more generous use of the Tridentine Rite should be given.
At least we have some common ground.
I think everyone should read this thread again. I know it's not going to satisfy everyone, but it will reveal the thinking of many in the respective camps. I also recommend the following links:
Conservative and Traditional Catholicism Compared
A Brief Defense of Traditionalism
(N.B. I don't necessarily endorse all of the viewpoints expressed in these articles, but I think it's a good starting point in getting everyone to settle down.)
I wonder if you know, sinkspur, that there used to be a gesture of profound affection and admiration, by which eminent men, upon their arrival at a city desirous of paying its respects, would find the young men of the city unhitching the horses of his carriage so that they could draw it themselves. It was a sign, sinkspur -- something rooted in the created world and the public acts of men -- a way to show loyalty and render service. It's a cultural memory that revives every time a victorious team hoists its coach or MVP to their shoulders and bears him aloft in honor of his authorship of their triumph -- an honor you'd never forget or disparage if you'd ever received it.
I grieve that you disparage the survival of this honorable custom in the sedia gestatoria, by which Catholic men are permitted to render physical homage to the Petrine office. I hope this is only an American sickness of the spirit that causes you to recoil from the natural impulse to render honor, and not a hatred of the office itself that you recoil from seeing it honored.
Well, lift yourself up, man!
The sedia was put to pasture by Paul VI, and has not been revived under JPII.
The "sickness of spirit" is in lifting up men who don't want it, men who realize, finally, that they wear the shoes of Him who had nowhere to lay His Head.
Very Pelagian of you, sinky.
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.