Posted on 06/09/2002 5:12:50 PM PDT by JMJ333
One thing they did this last year was put pink and blue trianglar flags on the front lawn of the church with a big sign stating that these flags represented the number of babies aborted in Oregon last year. It was awesome.....................so awesome that someone wrote an article into the Editor complaining about the display. Made someone a little uncomfortable, I guess.
Our youth group has grown so much that we ran out of room (too many of them) in the Parish Hall and we just were able to purchase a modular from a neighboring school. It only cost $1.00 becuase it came from a nearby heavily Catholic populated community about 15 miles away. We however have to pay for moving it and getting it set up.
The best to you in planning activities for your group. I bet you will have them out evangelizing in no time at all.
Are you serious? It's called education. Thirteen year olds are a lot smarter than you think. Do you believe in takingg children to museums? ``Is a 13 year old going to have an clue about the significance of dinosaurs that have not walked the earth in thousands of years?''
I'd love to continue the discussion with you, but I can't as long as you keep shouting that anyone who has the least critical word for the actions of a pope is a Protestant.
sitetest
That's "shrieking", not "shouting." In "Mystery and Manners," Flannery O'Connor explained why she wrote her fiction as she did- To the hard of hearing you shout, and to those with difficulty seeing, you write large (roughly, I don't have her book before me).
That is what I am attempting to do here. I don't think we American Catholics stop to look at what it is we are doing. Where do we get the authority to, not discuss, but criticise an Encyclical and judge it improper,poorly-reasoned, insufficient, deficient, erroneous, the cause of sin etc etc?
To me, that smacks of private judgement. The mini-media of the "right" is rife with scandalous attacks upon every Pope since Pius XII, an Ecumenical Council, the normative Mass, Encyclicals, philosophical orientation etc etc blah, blah, blah.
Then, when the "right" is confronted then complain. Apparently, The Latin Mass magazine can attack an Encyclical, they can give themsleves the liberty to attack Dignatatis Humanae (pun intended) but one can't criticise them for doing so. They roar when they attack then mewl when counter-attacked.
I still don't see how it is "Catholic" to dispute with the Pope or the Magisterium once a decision has been taken. To me, that is the essence of protestantism.
Roma Locuta est, Cause Finita est is a justifiably famous axiom. Currently though, since the self-annointed "traditionalists" have been revolutionised, it is more like Roma Locuta est and now WE must correct them, point out their failings, warn Christians of their errors and save the "Traditional faith." That, to me anyways, is the act of a protestant.
I think we ought to accept Rome, the Pope, the Magisterium and our bishop in union with the Pope as sources of legitimate authority and act with a hermeneutics of trust rather than, as Hand says, a hermenuetics of suspicion.
I understand how you might be feeling upset about the Sister, but maybe she was out of it that day. Our Communion Services are lead by lay people and I treasure them and thank the Lord for the opportunity to pray and receive His Body and Blood. Concentrate on Christ -- nothing else really matters. Right?
Read the thread today entitled "On the Offense".
Get involved in your church. Let's Roll!
But isn't this against the rules! I hate breaking the rules. I thought that only a deacon could conduct a communion service. That's why it has bothered me so bad because we have no deacons. In fact, Sister did a very good job of it, there were a few slip-ups and since this is all new to us no-one knows what to do or when to do it. It can get quite comical at times.
"I don't think we American Catholics stop to look at what it is we are doing."
You need to speak for yourself, here. I think a lot of Catholics, especially here, stop and look very hard at what we're doing. Your assumption that we don't borders on arrogance. You are bordering on judging the hearts and intentions of fellow Catholics. That's perilously close to mortal sin.
"Where do we get the authority to, not discuss, but criticise an Encyclical and judge it improper,poorly-reasoned, insufficient, deficient, erroneous, the cause of sin etc etc?"
We get the authority from the fact that we have intellects. Remember that docility is a mean between arrogance and subservience. Docility is an active acceptance that engages the intellectual faculties, not an unthinking blind acceptance.
We are bound by authoritative teaching, and the teaching of Humanae Vitae is authoritative. A Catholic may not use artificial contraception. Period.
We are not bound to things that are untrue. If the encyclical is poorly-reasoned, poorly-written, etc., for a devout Catholic with a properly-formed conscience, that doesn't call into question the authority of the teaching. We do not have to falsify reality and refuse to recognize that incidental to the actual truth of the assertions of the encyclical, that there may be problems with the encyclical, or how it was developed, or the actions that led up to it, by the pope or others.
You've badly used the term "private judgement". We're enjoined from "private judgement" in making interpretations of Scripture or Tradition which contradict the teachings of the Church. For those who would interpret Scripture or Tradition in any way that contradicted infallible teaching, that would be private judgement. For those who deny the binding authority of authoritative teaching that ISN'T infallible, that would be private judgement.
But for that which has not been judged to be infallible, though we are bound to obey teaching, we may still discuss how it could develop. That isn't private judgement.
Even though Rome has spoken, Pope Paul VI refrained for speaking once and for all, refrained from formally defining the teaching as infallible, and this is a legitimate question to discuss within the appropriate fora. Should a pope make clear that this is now infallible teaching, then everyone will be required to fall absolutely silent.
For now, we are called to obedience, not to silence. It may be that in the future, when a future pontiff declares this infallible teaching, there may be no more discussion. To speak within these parameters is Catholic. To go outside these parameters is Protestant.
But heck, Catholicguy, that isn't even what the question is, here. The truth of the teaching isn't in question. It isn't whether Pope Paul taught the truth or not. It's whether some of his actions were prudential, and whether his actual encyclical was well-written.
C'mon, Catholicguy, use your head. If the encyclical had received even modest acceptance in the West, these questions wouldn't be asked. One thing that gives us the right to ask the question is the fact that the encyclical did not gain general acceptance, and worse, that after many Catholics in the West rejected this teaching, they went on to reject much or all of the rest of Catholicism!
It's a logical fallacy, of course, to assume that because one thing follows another that the first caused the second. It is a worthy topic of investigation, though, to ask the question whether there is cause-and-effect where one finds correlation. Humanae Vitae was taught. The Church's traditional teaching on contraception was widely rejected in the West. Catholic devotion cratered. It is a fair question to ask whether Humanae Vitae, and the events surrounding it in some way caused, even in part, the later events. It isn't unCatholic, Protestant, nor is it private judgement.
You are stretching some sort of implicit papal infallibility to the breaking point. The actions of pontiffs may be critiqued. The efficacy of the teaching of pontiffs may be evaluated. We are bound by the Church's teaching authority, and we must give absolute assent to that which is taught infallibly. In the past, popes have done wrong, reasoned poorly, misadministered the Church, so on and so forth. We have a right to observe and tell the truth. Otherwise, history disproves infallibility (at least as you imply it).
This doesn't mean that I don't think that all your critique of the "traditionalists" is wrong. Heck, some of these folks have argued their way right into schism. Some do seem to act without charity, without giving the benefit of the doubt to the pope. Some ultimately do talk themselves into believing that they alone have Catholic truth, and the pope is not much more than a heretic. Where you find that specifically, have at it.
But quit implying that everyone's a Protestant who would offer the most mild evaluation and criticism of the actions of a pope. And don't allow your passion for defending the prerogatives of the pope to blind you to the fact that some of the criticisms levied by even some of the more outrageous "traditionalists" may nonetheless be true.
"I still don't see how it is 'Catholic' to dispute with the Pope or the Magisterium once a decision has been taken."
I'm reminded of a bumper sticker that goes something like this, "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that's the end of it." That, as we know, is fundamentalism. Catholics are not Bible fundamentalists. You seem to be saying, "The Pope says it, I believe it, and that's the end of it." That would be an ironic Catholic-looking version of fundamentalism. But it would still be fundamentalism. And that would be, indeed, Protestant.
You need to make clear that you understand that there is a distinction between loyal, devout, docile Catholics who evaluate how effectively the Church does what she does, and those who attack the fundamental teaching authority of the Church. If you can't make that distinction in your own mind between criticism of form and criticism of matter, then you are in error, and on the road to heresy. You will have accepted a profoundly unCatholic spirit.
sitetest
I was speaking for myself. It is the soi disant "traditionalists" that presume to speak for Jesus when it is in fact the Pope, Bishops in union with him and Ecumencial Councils that speak for Jesus.
I judged no hearts. I was responding to matter, not souls. I was responding to attacks against the Magisterium appearing in putative catholic sources. There is no difficulty in judging intent when the matter addressed contains within it expressed intent.
"Where do we get the authority to, not discuss, but criticise an Encyclical and judge it improper,poorly-reasoned, insufficient, deficient, erroneous, the cause of sin etc etc?" (My comment)
We get the authority from the fact that we have intellects. Remember that docility is a mean between arrogance and subservience. Docility is an active acceptance that engages the intellectual faculties, not an unthinking blind acceptance.
In other words, there is no Magisterial source to which we can repair to cite authority granting us liberty to attack either Encyclicals or Documents of an Ecumenical Council.
We are bound by authoritative teaching, and the teaching of Humanae Vitae is authoritative. A Catholic may not use artificial contraception. Period.
Agreed
We are not bound to things that are untrue. If the encyclical is poorly-reasoned, poorly-written, etc., for a devout Catholic with a properly-formed conscience, that doesn't call into question the authority of the teaching. We do not have to falsify reality and refuse to recognize that incidental to the actual truth of the assertions of the encyclical, that there may be problems with the encyclical, or how it was developed, or the actions that led up to it, by the pope or others.
So, it is obvious, by some arrived at consensus of soi disant "Traditionalists", that the Pope was inept in writing this Encyclical? No presumptiveness there.
You've badly used the term "private judgement". We're enjoined from "private judgement" in making interpretations of Scripture or Tradition which contradict the teachings of the Church. For those who would interpret Scripture or Tradition in any way that contradicted infallible teaching, that would be private judgement. For those who deny the binding authority of authoritative teaching that ISN'T infallible, that would be private judgement.
But for that which has not been judged to be infallible, though we are bound to obey teaching, we may still discuss how it could develop. That isn't private judgement.
Even though Rome has spoken, Pope Paul VI refrained for speaking once and for all, refrained from formally defining the teaching as infallible, and this is a legitimate question to discuss within the appropriate fora. Should a pope make clear that this is now infallible teaching, then everyone will be required to fall absolutely silent.
Look, it is infallible teaching that contraception is evil. It has always been taught and always will be taught. I don't have his Encyclical before me, but in one of his Encyclicals, Pope Leo XIII noted that while not everything in an Encyclical is infallible, nevertheless it is authoritative and must be accepted. (I'll look it up when I get home). I don't remember him giving leave to the laity to trash the author of an Encyclical or the structure of the Encyclical or to suggest in any way that because most are disobedient to the Teaching contained in an Encyclical that in any way makes it's author or the text complicit in the sin.
I recall Moses wasn't even back from Mt. Horeb before all Hell had broken loose. Wanna try and say the Ten Commandments were poorly-drafted?
For now, we are called to obedience, not to silence. It may be that in the future, when a future pontiff declares this infallible teaching, there may be no more discussion. To speak within these parameters is Catholic. To go outside these parameters is Protestant.
But heck, Catholicguy, that isn't even what the question is, here. The truth of the teaching isn't in question. It isn't whether Pope Paul taught the truth or not. It's whether some of his actions were prudential, and whether his actual encyclical was well-written.
That is a question for those who approach the Magisterium with the "hermeneutics of suspicion." Look, Jesus says "He who hears you hears me," and our response is going to be - 'Yeah, well what you say may be authoritative but you had no clue how to formulate it correctly, so , I, as a loyal son of the Church, am going to tell what to say next time - LISTEN UP.'
C'mon, Catholicguy, use your head. If the encyclical had received even modest acceptance in the West, these questions wouldn't be asked. One thing that gives us the right to ask the question is the fact that the encyclical did not gain general acceptance, and worse, that after many Catholics in the West rejected this teaching, they went on to reject much or all of the rest of Catholicism!
No comment (which proves I am using my head)
I t's a logical fallacy, of course, to assume that because one thing follows another that the first caused the second. It is a worthy topic of investigation, though, to ask the question whether there is cause-and-effect where one finds correlation. Humanae Vitae was taught. The Church's traditional teaching on contraception was widely rejected in the West. Catholic devotion cratered. It is a fair question to ask whether Humanae Vitae, and the events surrounding it in some way caused, even in part, the later events. It isn't unCatholic, Protestant, nor is it private judgement.
You are stretching some sort of implicit papal infallibility to the breaking point. The actions of pontiffs may be critiqued. The efficacy of the teaching of pontiffs may be evaluated. We are bound by the Church's teaching authority, and we must give absolute assent to that which is taught infallibly. In the past, popes have done wrong, reasoned poorly, misadministered the Church, so on and so forth. We have a right to observe and tell the truth. Otherwise, history disproves infallibility (at least as you imply it).
This doesn't mean that I don't think that all your critique of the "traditionalists" is wrong. Heck, some of these folks have argued their way right into schism. Some do seem to act without charity, without giving the benefit of the doubt to the pope. Some ultimately do talk themselves into believing that they alone have Catholic truth, and the pope is not much more than a heretic. Where you find that specifically, have at it.
But quit implying that everyone's a Protestant who would offer the most mild evaluation and criticism of the actions of a pope. And don't allow your passion for defending the prerogatives of the pope to blind you to the fact that some of the criticisms levied by even some of the more outrageous "traditionalists" may nonetheless be true.
I deny with every aprt of my being that their criticism is "truth." It is destructive criticism and destroys unity and makes it appear to others as though we are no different than protestants. Hell, I think our Fathers get more respect than does he who occupies the position of Divinely-constituted authority. It is though he is just another Joe Blow knucklehead whose opinion is on the same level with his critics.
"I still don't see how it is 'Catholic' to dispute with the Pope or the Magisterium once a decision has been taken." (My words)
I'm reminded of a bumper sticker that goes something like this, "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that's the end of it." That, as we know, is fundamentalism. Catholics are not Bible fundamentalists. You seem to be saying, "The Pope says it, I believe it, and that's the end of it." That would be an ironic Catholic-looking version of fundamentalism. But it would still be fundamentalism. And that would be, indeed, Protestant.
"He who hears you hears me."
You need to make clear that you understand that there is a distinction between loyal, devout, docile Catholics who evaluate how effectively the Church does what she does, and those who attack the fundamental teaching authority of the Church. If you can't make that distinction in your own mind between criticism of form and criticism of matter, then you are in error, and on the road to heresy. You will have accepted a profoundly unCatholic spirit.
Of course, I think I am the loyal Catholic by not attacking Encyclicals and Ecuemnical Councils. We will agree to disagree.
The kids are perfectly capable of distinguishing between the perfectly valid Novus Ordo rite and what is often its cultural banality [Hi, I'm Rembert and I will be your presider today] and the perfectly valid Tridentine Mass and its cultural magnificence. The constant whining about the Latin language is simply an appeal to laziness and ignorance. Furthermore, many of our parents and their forebears used the simultaneous translations of the missal and many prayed the rosary during Mass. How are you going to keep them down on the farm after they've seen Paree?
My only personal complaint with many contemporary Tridentine Masses is their interminable length which is about twice as long as they used to be. I ease the length by saying fifteen-decade rosaries when I attend Tridentine Masses. If I did not know better, I would think that the exaggerated slow motion was designed to keep the Tridentine Club small. I also go to Novus Ordo Masses with good preachers when time is a real issue which is about half the time. If anyone dared say a ninety minute Novus Ordo regularly, there would be empty churches in short order.
I had been waiting to get a copy of the magazine since we had mislaid ours and was preparing to join in the attack on the article itself but a cursory reading indicates some valid criticisms. We need not put our intellect in trust and check it at the door of the Church.
I think truth lies somewhere between your position and that of sitetest (assuming that the designation of Galvin as Traditionalist means that he is conservative as a Catholic which he certainly is) (imagine how I hate casting myself as moderate). We were not given intellects to engage in what amounts to the interminable AmChurch liberal method of scratching each and every itch and looking for more. The simple person in the pew praying the rosary in visiting the Blessed Sacrament without fanfare and adhereing to the best of his or ability to discern to the truths of the Magisterium is every bit as good a Catholic and often more so than our all too sophisticated theologians (with or without mandatum) who intellectualize themselves into heresy.
I am entirely confused as to how judging what is said by other "Catholics" not to be Catholic is perilously close to heresy. SDS wasn't worth much but it did understand in one wing the common sense that you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. So called Catholics for a Free Choice, whatever else they may be, are NOT Catholic. If that judgment is perilously close to heresy, make the most of it.
Prudentially, both John XXIII and Paul VI were often disasters. No one guaranteed them leadership skills. No one guaranteed them prudential wisdom. If that is perilously close to heresy, make the most of it.
The word schism has a meaning. That meaning is not a group of people who worship in Tridentine Masses thoroughly approved by their diocese under the Indult of Pope John Paul II. Some of them may well be schismatics but not for that reason. Just as there are schismatics who attend Novus Ordo Masses but they are not schismatics just because they attend the Mass that is, for better or for worse, the present standard rite of the Church.
I would be more worried about schism in those who contemplate the rejection of Humanae Vitae because many American Catholics or other Western Catholics did not like it or were disappointed by it and may have been led (not by the encyclical but by their own self-worship and rebellious dissent against it) to reject most other Catholic beliefs. Let's not idealize these now aging malcontents. They had essentially rejected the legitimate authority of Rome already and had anticipated getting their way on birth control because it seemed so normal, so modern, so affirming of their self-rule, so comfy, that they could not imagine being bound by ancient truths and somehow saw their marriages or affairs or whatever as exceptional and none of Rome's business along with their materialistic desires for cash in lieu of kids.
I will concede that both of you seem much more learned than this mere streetfighter but I still believe what I told a nun in grammar school: The grammar school dropout collecting garbage in Chicago who is right is more right than the articulate rationalizing guy with a string of ten PhDs who is wrong on the same subject.
Roma Locuta, Causa Finita, a blessing if ever there was one, involves the dogma not the marketing. If we were free to go with our intellects, I would have to attack NFP as a dismal hypocrisy. I must be wrong because Rome has spoken. I am not being at all sarcastic in saying that I find Rome and papal authority a blessed relief since I have far too much to decide already.
May God bless both of you and all of yours.
Catechism #85 The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means tha the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the sucessor or Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
Catechism #86 Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the word of God, but its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devoutely, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.
Catechism #87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me," the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.
Pope St. Pius X: Pascendi Dominici Gregis (On Modernism)"Tradition and Progress:" 'The conserving force exists in the Church and is found in Tradition; Tradition is represented by religious authority, and this both by right and in fact. By right, for it is in the very nature of authgority to protect Tradition; and in fact, since authority, raised as it is above the contingencies of life, feels hardly, or not at all, the spurs of progress.'
ALL Catholics are "traditional." There are some "catholics," self-annointed, self-appointed and self-described as "Traditionalists" who think they have the authority to decide what is and isn't "Tradition." They place themselves in opposition to the legitimate authority and, with pertinacity, attack an Ecumenical Council, attack and slice-up Encyclicals, attack and criticise and condemn the philosophy of the Pope, blah, blah, blah . They usurp the Divinely-constituted authority and oppose what Rome decides is Tradition. Other than self-will, they have nothing on which to stand. They, in fact, do engage in private judgement; daily
I have just posted what H.M. Church says about herself and how she is the one who decides what is and isn't Tr adition. "He who heareth you, heareth me" was not directed to the self-annointed.
"Traditionalists" continually charge Rome and the Papacy with having been revolutionised. The fact is, they are the ones who have been radicalised and revolutionised. In fact, they have been so radicialised they now mimic the modernists they habitually condemn.
Read this from "Quanta Cura" by Pope Pius IX and tell me this does not describe the actions of the soi disant "Traditionalists."
"Neither can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, assert that "the judgements and decrees of the Holy See, the object of which is declared to concern the general welfare of the Church, its rights, and its discipline, do not claim acquiesence and obedience, under pain of sin and loss of catholic profession, if they do not treat of the dogmas of the faith and morals. "
Quanta Cura # 22 "The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgement of the Church." (That is being condemned).
I don't think it argueable that the "Traditionalists" have become just like the modernists they constantly castigate. The only difference is in what they oppose and reject. But, each rejects and opposes Rome, the Pope, Encyclicals, and parts, or whole, of the most recent Ecumenical Council.
The modernists are the obverse of the oppositional coin and the traditionalists are the reverse of that counterfeit specie which purchases nothing in the economy of Divine Salvation.
That having been said, the laity may certainly observe, based upon the evidence available, that one pope has demonstrated more in the way of leadership skills than another. To question the wisdom of calling Vatican II is not to dissent from its teachings.
If, as he did, Pope Paul VI went to the United Nations in New York to label the United States as a perpetrator of "racist genocide" against the Vietnamese people, he was simply and dramatically wrong on the facts and wrong on the evidence in a matter for which his papacy did not qualify him; i.e. labeling as "racist genocide" a war in which the United States supported one substantial group of Vietnamese against another, both of whom were of the same race and never engaged, despite having the necessary weapons in any attempt to rid the world of Vietnamese people as a race much less the Asian race to which they belonged.
If, for example, he had said that the Vietnam War did not meet the standards of a just war and that Catholics were not allowed to serve in it, I would not have been happy with his pronouncement (who cares or should care what I think?) but I would owe my external and internal assent to a pronouncement that would clearly have been a matter of faith and morals and well within his competence.
On the factual question of what constitutes "racist genocide", he enjoyed no special authority any more than he would in saying that sandwiches made of peanut butter and jelly are better than sandwiches made of cream cheese and jelly and particularly when the facts themselves do not support the description of racist or of genocide or of both.
I am not sure if you are suggesting that we are in disagreement. It may also be said that while the spirit of disobedience pervades any schism and that no schism is justifiable. Schism, like crime, has nuanced degrees of evil. Lefebvre and his cult were seeking, inter alia, a good thing, the restoration of the Tridentine Mass. That Mass in and of itself can hardly be called malum in se having been the historic norm of the Church for most of its existence. It contained no doctrinal error. Nor does the Novus Ordo, despite some of the contortions engaged in by its critics, contain error. If it did, it would not be the norm today.
Of course, it is axiomatic that the end does not justify the means and so going into disobedient schism is hardly justified by the nobility of the goal regardless of what the schismatics of either side may say. It is important to recognize the existence of schismatic possibilities and actualities left and right (for lack of better terms). Those who would claim that Catholicism allows for a fully informed Catholic conscience to decide in favor of abortion on subjective grounds or otherwise are certainly not conforming to legitimate religious authority any more than those who regard lavender love activity as acceptable to the fully informed "Catholic" conscience, or those who reject the marriage laws of the Church, or those who convert (steal) Church property to their own uses whatever those uses may be.
It is personally galling to many who strive to adhere to Church doctrine and to submit in all respects to Church authority to watch the rampaging misbehavior of left schismatics go unpunished but Scripture is in that respect a potential guide in the parable of the Prodigal Son. Of course, the prodigal son did, at least, repent. Schismatics of whatever sort seem not to regard repentance as necessary.
We love our Church. To make an analogy outside of the Church, let me use baseball. I am a Yankee fan these last fifty years or so. If Derek Jeter should make a crucial error leading to the loss of an important game to the Boston franchise in the American League whose name shall not be mentioned, I will not cease being a Derek Jeter fan. If he should purposely throw a game, I will cease being a Jeter fan until he credibly repents and asks forgiveness but I will still be a Yankee fan. A crisis in my baseball faith might (very unlikely) occur if the entire organizaion were to throw a game to such an opponent.
Fortunately, my Church is indefectable and I will never have to worry about it throwing a game to lucifer (an equivalent of a certain New England MLB team whose name shall not be mentioned). Therefore, my Faith shall not be shaken in such a respect.
There is a once Catholic Church across the street from Boston Common which used to have three Masses per hour and confessions round the clock. Returning to Logan airport in Boston on a Sunday, too late to make Mass in Connecticut, I rented a car and made my way to the church in question (St. Anthony's?) where a person, dressed in a manner reminiscent of a lumberjack was sitting in a pew (theater in the round) until Mass time (only a few per day now). He stood up and gave us the newly "traditional" substitute for Introibo ad altare Dei: "Hi, My name is Barry and I will be your presider today."
Thus began the most distasteful Mass experience of my life. Hymns were strictly limited to the environment as the apparent object of worship, together with movie screens on which the lyrics were scrolled to help the terminally Catholic among us. Barry consecrated loaves of French bread which were distributed by some aging counterculture female anachronisms who looked like refugees from Haight-Ashbury, with the consecrated crumbs being dropped carelessly all over the floor as the loaves were passed from "parishioner" to "parishioner" and chunks torn off. All that was missing were jugs of consecrated Mateus or Thunderbird passed from "parishioner" to "parishioner." I guess that inebriation might have eased the pain of the Faithful present, if any, at this, this, this performance.
I do fear, in spite of it all, that even this was a valid Mass although one wonders about the efficacy of consecrating French bread in violation of canon law norms without excuse
Barry invited us to the basement after Mass for a Christmas Bazaar exclusively devoted to raising funds not for this execrable excuse for a parish but for the Sandinistas who, he claimed, had made all the available knicknacks with their own (bloodstained) hands.
I am also a lifelong Yankee fan. Somewhere in The Apocalypse a warning is issued; "Woe betide that team that trades the Babe. It were better for them they were never interested in Broadway plays. They shall live, long, cursed and tragic lives and anytime they think their hopes shall be realised, I shall send my avenging angel, in the name of St Bucky Dent, to strike a swift savage blow with his sword and destroy any hopes they might have."
As a former altar boy during the 1950s when much of the Mass was a matter of prayers and responses between the priest and the altar boy uttered sotto voce, the congregation had very little more to go on than to follow the choreography. You could hear a pin drop at low Mass. It was wonderful and no one could have credibly questioned the piety of the congregation, the altar boys or the priest. God invented altar boys to respond for the people. Any member of the congregation could respond silently with the help of the Missal.
That you wonder over people saying the rosary at Mass is a very good example (to me at least) of the differences in spirituality wrought by the Novus Ordo. If the Novus Ordo reflects your own sense of the sacred, fine, but it is hard to talk when you have never attended a Tridentine Mass. You ought to do so if for no better reason than to see what we lost in the 1960s. Remember that I do attend Novus Ordo Masses as often as not but I will only attend those said with reverence and sound sermons.
As to your first observation, I agree that these cultural differences ought not to be allowed to drive divisions into the Church as they unquestionably have. Wherever I may hear these modern hymns and particularly any mention of Kumbaya, I will vote with my feet and presume that only an emergency affecting Mass obligations will be the setting in which I set foot in such a Church again. I am NOT trying to abolish such hymns for everyone else or asking that such Churches close down. I just ask and, indeed, insist that they not inflict themselves on me.
On Eagle's Wings is actually my more cultured wife's pet peeve. I wouldn't know it if I heard it but I trust her judgment on this one. An illustrative example. When my wife and I were engaged we (I was 40, she was 31) were invited to dinner by a prominent conservative elderly couple who were previous employers of hers. We were charmed when the husband handed the menu to the wife and asked her: What do I want for dinner, dear?
On Church music my wife and I agree on Gregorian Chant and Palestrina (our one and only area of musical agreement since she is into classical music and "authentic" folk music which is defined by its obscurity and the fact that no one has ever heard the vanilla lyrics and I am paleo-rock 'n roll with 30s and 40s music and, I confess, disco, the Beach Boys and Peter, Paul and Mary). That ought to alienate everyone.
An important part of my background is the Irish Church of Silence. Say the Mass quickly before the Brits arrive with machine guns and whatever you do keep the noise down to a low level. We'll gather in the woods late tonight and go hunting them. That is, at least what I romantically imagine, never having been to Ireland personally.
I don't like pacifism. I don't like lavender misbehavior or "orientation." I despise everything embodied in th term Kumbaya as used here. I don't like the endless discomfort of liberal AmChurch which is always bent on destroying what it cannot bring itself to understand to satisfy its infernal itch for innovation for its own sake. (I am being charitable here because they may well understand in which case,........ never mind). I want a general return to the attitude exemplified by the description of the Church Militant but I want it to be voluntary and not forced. My kind of Catholic is Jimmy Cagney and not Martin Sheen.
God bless you and yours.
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.