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 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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
Mark Shea...yawn.
First, the traditionalists, while growing steadily in numbers, are still a fairly small contingent among Catholics overall. They've had, in most cases, to fight with their bishops for everything that they've gotten, even the crumbs that they often have to settle for. Many, many local ordinaries have never been "generous," as the Indult urged, in supplying venues, priests, and permissions for other Sacraments to be given in the older Rite. This can lead to a certain pugnacious projection of appearance on the part of traditionalists. I don't say that that's a good thing; I am just saying that that is how human nature tends to work. Would that we were all saints bearing patiently with trials and adversity, but such is not the case. Such is often not the case among the mainstream, either, in their dealings with us. "Elitism" and smarmy condescension certainly cuts both ways!
Second, one needs to consider that, in the days of the Indult, when there was usually just one venue per diocese (among the ones granting the Indult at all, of course), the TLM at Saint So-and-So's might often attract some of the more..."colorful"... types in the diocese. This is only natural. At all times through Church history, there have always been a few unstable people in most any parish. Some of them have always manifested their instability via excessive pietism, rigorism, etc. Well, when there is only "one game in town" for people afflicted with some form of hyperpietism or whatever, reflected in a tenacious attachment to the TLM, they will naturally congregate in the one allowed venue out of proportion to the majority of more squared-away traditionalists. Here in Boston, we have always had a few folks a can or two short of a six-pack in the Traddie community. Sometimes, they say and do embarrassing things, and get press attention or diocesan attention way out of proportion to their actual numbers. At their peak, I would say the constituted no more than 15% of the Indult congregation. They're a much smaller proportion now. Certainly, there are many more than that among the sedes, but I'm not talking about them. I presume Mark Shea isn't either.
The vast majority of Traddies in the current Motu Proprio setup are quite stable, normal people, willing to get along perfectly calmly with their Novus Ordo fellow Catholics, and they aren't anywhere near the angry, ugly people Shea seems to imply are everywhere. And, again, there are more than a few Catholics in Novus Ordo parishes who are every bit as angry and ugly. They are not representative of the whole NO culture, either. Shea needs to get a better handle on both general human nature and how small populations within a larger culture largely ignorant of them, centered on (usually) one venue, tend to concentrate people with an "attitude."
As for all of the foregoing, now that the Motu Proprio is beginning to bear good fruit, and more venues are opening up for the TLM with a better "attitude" on the part of many bishops and priests (the result of a "talking-to" from Rome, perhaps, but a better, more open attitude, nonetheless), and a more mainstreaming capability is reached as overall numbers grow, we will see much of this "anger" disappear. In a couple more years, those Traddies who, up to now, have been disaffected over real and imagined slights will have either gone off the reservation to the sedes, or will have their concerns (finally) addressed and settle-in to life as the MP envisions it for them. A little respect and understanding from the majority can do wonders in fostering a little benignity among those who feel embattled!
I usually like Mark Shea, but this is unimpressive.
There is a direct connection between bad liturgy and bad theology.
In winking at bad liturgy and mocking those who deride it, he is, in effect, promoting contracepting Christianity, womynprysts, and the homosexual agenda within the Church. No, not directly, but he is promoting that which enabled all of those movements.