Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Leo XIII On St. Joseph
Anything I could write on St. Joseph would be a waste of time considering what Leo XIII wrote on devotion to St. Joseph. A safe rule of thumb is that when Leo XIII spoke on something, just shut up and link him instead. He did it better over a century before you did.
Monday, March 18, 2013
Mark Shea Wants Moar Sane Trads
Or something.
He admits that his exposure to traditionalists tends to be just in the online world. Here is a little piece of advice for the Mr. Shea, who was a seasoned battle hardened apologist when I first came into the Catholic Faith 13 years ago: if you are letting your online dealings form your perception of a group of people, you are doing it wrong.
He himself tends to admit that those he meets face to face tend to be a lot better than the "urine and vinegar" wing of traditionalism online* that essentially treat him as the bane of all that is right and holy. I think Mr. Shea should change that. He doesn't need to become a traditionalist. He doesn't even need to neccessarily like the Extraordinary Form. (Though he should!) He should just look up the parishes that have a vibrant EF community, and see if they are hosting any events. Then he should go check them out. Spend some time talking to them, maybe even have a few drinks. He will find almost all of them are of the sane variety. I'm sure his readers can find him the locations of some vibrant communities. If all else fails, should he ever find himself traveling toThunderdome Detroit, he can have a welcome spot at the social after Mass. He'll certainly have far more in common economically with most traditionalists than I do!
Another way to help with this is to remember that in many cases, what he is seeing is a generational problem. A lot of the more bitter minded traditionalists went through some pretty nasty persecution. Not all of it (though in some cases a fair amount) was self-inflicted. Nowadays when you walk into a traditionalist parish, the audience has been experiencing a downward trend as the congregations become younger and younger. (Compared to your normal liberal parish which is becoming older and older!)
A lot of these individuals didn't experience those dark times. Most traditionalists who are 30 years old only know life under the motu proprio, or at least it is just a faint memory. For me, at 30 years old, this is the first year where my attendance at the Latin Mass falls more under the Post motu proprio age than the Indult age. As traditionalists become more and more involved with these parishes, expect the trend to only continue.
So when you come across the U&V wing (which are just like every other troll group online), you can then say with confidence "These guys aren't like the traditionalists I know!" because you actually know a ton of traditionalists who aren't like that.
* A phrase that I coined and demand royalties for!
He admits that his exposure to traditionalists tends to be just in the online world. Here is a little piece of advice for the Mr. Shea, who was a seasoned battle hardened apologist when I first came into the Catholic Faith 13 years ago: if you are letting your online dealings form your perception of a group of people, you are doing it wrong.
He himself tends to admit that those he meets face to face tend to be a lot better than the "urine and vinegar" wing of traditionalism online* that essentially treat him as the bane of all that is right and holy. I think Mr. Shea should change that. He doesn't need to become a traditionalist. He doesn't even need to neccessarily like the Extraordinary Form. (Though he should!) He should just look up the parishes that have a vibrant EF community, and see if they are hosting any events. Then he should go check them out. Spend some time talking to them, maybe even have a few drinks. He will find almost all of them are of the sane variety. I'm sure his readers can find him the locations of some vibrant communities. If all else fails, should he ever find himself traveling to
Another way to help with this is to remember that in many cases, what he is seeing is a generational problem. A lot of the more bitter minded traditionalists went through some pretty nasty persecution. Not all of it (though in some cases a fair amount) was self-inflicted. Nowadays when you walk into a traditionalist parish, the audience has been experiencing a downward trend as the congregations become younger and younger. (Compared to your normal liberal parish which is becoming older and older!)
A lot of these individuals didn't experience those dark times. Most traditionalists who are 30 years old only know life under the motu proprio, or at least it is just a faint memory. For me, at 30 years old, this is the first year where my attendance at the Latin Mass falls more under the Post motu proprio age than the Indult age. As traditionalists become more and more involved with these parishes, expect the trend to only continue.
So when you come across the U&V wing (which are just like every other troll group online), you can then say with confidence "These guys aren't like the traditionalists I know!" because you actually know a ton of traditionalists who aren't like that.
* A phrase that I coined and demand royalties for!
The Liturgy and Humility
If nothing else, the last few days have been a clarifying moment for traditionalists. No, I'm not talking about Pope Francis. At least not directly. What I am referring to is the line of attack many will make against the Latin Mass. Traditionalists need to be smart and anticipate this.
What is that line of attack? For the rest of Pope Francis' pontificate, there will be those who will attack traditionalists the following way. They will see an emphasis by this Pope for the poor and humble, and ask what is poor and humble about the way traditionalists celebrate their liturgy? We will then be viewed as not being obedient to the Pope.... again. First they said it was illegal. Then under the Indult, we were told it was inferior, and to enjoy our position as inferior Catholics. Then the motu proprio came out, and they've been looking for another avenue. They think they have found it.
If the Extraordinary Form and Traditionalism is to survive, we must meet this head on. Yet we can't do so by just mocking our friends across the way, as much as they deserve to be mocked. From almost every indication, it is becoming clear there will be a renewed emphasis on simplicity and humility in this pontificate, and maybe even (dare we hope?) a renewed emphasis on penance.
We need to emphasize how the Extraordinary Form helps further simplicity and humility. Fr. Z has already done a good job in giving a brief look into how the vestments of the priest and his actions, while to the untrained eye might seem pompous, are actually a great symbol of humility. Everyone needs to do more. We will need to do something similar for all of the Extraordinary Form. The prayers, the postures of the faithful, even the architecture, we need to show how all of these things reinforce humility and simplicity in the soul. The liturgy of St. Francis of Assisi's time, the one he would have spent much time in, the one he would have loved, has far more in common with the Extraordinary Form than the "simple" liturgies, and this needs to be emphasized. If the Church needs a renewed emphasis on humility and penance, then that is what the Church needs. Yet we need to promote those things which bring about the interior renewal of these things.
Now if people think that is too alarmist, then let us suppose that we strengthen this belief (any time spent among the Extraordindary Form communities will tell you this is already believed), and become more passionate and aggressive in spreading it, and the Pope decides not to listen to the enemies of the Latin Mass, and nothing happens. We've still managed to become more in tune with an important virtue, and we can never have a sufficient attitude of penance, so it is still a win.
That's our job.
What is that line of attack? For the rest of Pope Francis' pontificate, there will be those who will attack traditionalists the following way. They will see an emphasis by this Pope for the poor and humble, and ask what is poor and humble about the way traditionalists celebrate their liturgy? We will then be viewed as not being obedient to the Pope.... again. First they said it was illegal. Then under the Indult, we were told it was inferior, and to enjoy our position as inferior Catholics. Then the motu proprio came out, and they've been looking for another avenue. They think they have found it.
If the Extraordinary Form and Traditionalism is to survive, we must meet this head on. Yet we can't do so by just mocking our friends across the way, as much as they deserve to be mocked. From almost every indication, it is becoming clear there will be a renewed emphasis on simplicity and humility in this pontificate, and maybe even (dare we hope?) a renewed emphasis on penance.
We need to emphasize how the Extraordinary Form helps further simplicity and humility. Fr. Z has already done a good job in giving a brief look into how the vestments of the priest and his actions, while to the untrained eye might seem pompous, are actually a great symbol of humility. Everyone needs to do more. We will need to do something similar for all of the Extraordinary Form. The prayers, the postures of the faithful, even the architecture, we need to show how all of these things reinforce humility and simplicity in the soul. The liturgy of St. Francis of Assisi's time, the one he would have spent much time in, the one he would have loved, has far more in common with the Extraordinary Form than the "simple" liturgies, and this needs to be emphasized. If the Church needs a renewed emphasis on humility and penance, then that is what the Church needs. Yet we need to promote those things which bring about the interior renewal of these things.
Now if people think that is too alarmist, then let us suppose that we strengthen this belief (any time spent among the Extraordindary Form communities will tell you this is already believed), and become more passionate and aggressive in spreading it, and the Pope decides not to listen to the enemies of the Latin Mass, and nothing happens. We've still managed to become more in tune with an important virtue, and we can never have a sufficient attitude of penance, so it is still a win.
That's our job.
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Why do Traditionalists Care So Much About the Latin Mass?
Since the election of Pope Francis (and some of the overreactions of various traditionalists) I've had several friends ask me what at first may seem like an odd question. Why do traditionalists care about the Latin Mass so much? We aren't like the moonbat crowd that rejects the validity of the Ordinary Form, so what's the big deal? If you aren't a traditionalist, it can be very tough to describe the attachment we have towards the extraordinary Form, even if we view the Ordinary Form a valid and lawful mass as we must.
When you go through dark times as a Catholic, you usually have a lot of avenues to turn to. You have Church socials. You have friendly priests. You can seek encouragement from prominent Catholics that what you are doing is right. For the longest time, traditionalists had none of these things. They were faithful catholics persecuted in their own parishes. Around the dioceses, they were seldom at the socials, as it was made clear they weren't welcome. If you had a bishop who decided to offer a concession (and it was almost always a concession!) for a Latin Mass, it was typically in a bad neighborhood in a bad time that you were forbidden from advertising about. If you found out about the Latin Mass, it was by accident more often than not.
These negative opinions were reinforced by a lot of the commentariat amongst Catholics. It was never any surprise that the likes of National Catholic Reporter despised us. Yet amongst magazines like Crisis Magazine, the disdain for traditionalists was unparalleled. Janet Smith will lecture against contraception, always presuming the goodwill of those who nevertheless do a very bad thing. Yet a traditionalist is a fossil, a relic of "yesterdays Church" who stands in the way of true progress in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council.
Considering these factors, traditionalists tended to become tight knit small communities at the Latin Masses they went to during the Indult days, even in spite of those in authority doing everything possible to keep them apart. Things began to change with the election of Pope Benedict, albeit in subtle ways. I would say that there was never any revolutionary change under his pontificate for traditionalists. Instead, we slowly but surely were able to rejoin the church at large. Most Masses were still in the city (as they were designed for that kind of Mass) but they were a lot more out in the open now. You started having religious orders like the FSSP encounter incredible growth, to where they are just now beginning to pump out the first generation of priests where the Latin Mass was an acceptable thing to celebrate.
Once traditionalists had that all important stability (rarely do we worry anymore that a bishop might wake up on the wrong side of the bed and outlaw the mass in his diocese), we were able to develop stable communities, host events, develop homeschooling networks, and begin to pass on to others all the good we have to offer, with little of the bad. We even have leaders in the church who are not just sympathetic to our causes (like Pope Benedict XVI was), but outright advocates of our cause. 10-15 years ago, a Cardinal Ranjith or Bishop Schneider would have been unheard of. The Congregation for Divine Worship has been ran (or had secretaries) who could count as close allies like Cardinal Llovera. In short, the growth of traditionalists in the last decade has been stronger than many would have thought possible before Pope Benedict.
Even with all this growth, it is still a young phenomena, and many fear that without leadership encouraging traditionalists, it will whither and decay. I think such fears are overblown, but I can completely understand why they exist. We are too used to the old ways and sometimes forget how much we have accomplished, and how much more we can accomplish. Yet I ask those who aren't traditionalists to keep this in mind whenever these discussions come up. For traditionalists, the Latin Mass has been a rock of stability in our faith lives, and nobody wants their rock taken away.
When you go through dark times as a Catholic, you usually have a lot of avenues to turn to. You have Church socials. You have friendly priests. You can seek encouragement from prominent Catholics that what you are doing is right. For the longest time, traditionalists had none of these things. They were faithful catholics persecuted in their own parishes. Around the dioceses, they were seldom at the socials, as it was made clear they weren't welcome. If you had a bishop who decided to offer a concession (and it was almost always a concession!) for a Latin Mass, it was typically in a bad neighborhood in a bad time that you were forbidden from advertising about. If you found out about the Latin Mass, it was by accident more often than not.
These negative opinions were reinforced by a lot of the commentariat amongst Catholics. It was never any surprise that the likes of National Catholic Reporter despised us. Yet amongst magazines like Crisis Magazine, the disdain for traditionalists was unparalleled. Janet Smith will lecture against contraception, always presuming the goodwill of those who nevertheless do a very bad thing. Yet a traditionalist is a fossil, a relic of "yesterdays Church" who stands in the way of true progress in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council.
Considering these factors, traditionalists tended to become tight knit small communities at the Latin Masses they went to during the Indult days, even in spite of those in authority doing everything possible to keep them apart. Things began to change with the election of Pope Benedict, albeit in subtle ways. I would say that there was never any revolutionary change under his pontificate for traditionalists. Instead, we slowly but surely were able to rejoin the church at large. Most Masses were still in the city (as they were designed for that kind of Mass) but they were a lot more out in the open now. You started having religious orders like the FSSP encounter incredible growth, to where they are just now beginning to pump out the first generation of priests where the Latin Mass was an acceptable thing to celebrate.
Once traditionalists had that all important stability (rarely do we worry anymore that a bishop might wake up on the wrong side of the bed and outlaw the mass in his diocese), we were able to develop stable communities, host events, develop homeschooling networks, and begin to pass on to others all the good we have to offer, with little of the bad. We even have leaders in the church who are not just sympathetic to our causes (like Pope Benedict XVI was), but outright advocates of our cause. 10-15 years ago, a Cardinal Ranjith or Bishop Schneider would have been unheard of. The Congregation for Divine Worship has been ran (or had secretaries) who could count as close allies like Cardinal Llovera. In short, the growth of traditionalists in the last decade has been stronger than many would have thought possible before Pope Benedict.
Even with all this growth, it is still a young phenomena, and many fear that without leadership encouraging traditionalists, it will whither and decay. I think such fears are overblown, but I can completely understand why they exist. We are too used to the old ways and sometimes forget how much we have accomplished, and how much more we can accomplish. Yet I ask those who aren't traditionalists to keep this in mind whenever these discussions come up. For traditionalists, the Latin Mass has been a rock of stability in our faith lives, and nobody wants their rock taken away.
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Designers Wanted
Anyone good with building a sleek template for blogger formats? Get in touch with me. While this template is bare bones, I'd really want something more, but that really isn't my strong suit.
Friday, March 15, 2013
Site Maintenence
Maintenence Done. Will see how I like it over the next few days, therefore this look is still ad experimentum. Be sure to check the archives to my Catholic Lane column located to the side.
Why This (Semi) Capitalist Wants a Social Justice Pope
On Facebook and various other venues, there has been something a lot of people have noted when talking about Pope Francis. They note his general skepticism of a lot of the way capitalism is practiced today, and wonder what the political right in America will think of that. While it is still far too early to tell, there is a chance (so the story goes) that Pope Francis will be far less friendly to free market capitalism than one like Blessed John Paul II.
There are quite a few ways to respond to this, outside of the obvious that they probably don't know much about either Francis or John Paul II. First and foremost, whatever happened in Argentina, a military dictatorship known for its rank nepotism could hardly be viewed as a capitalist entity. Yet this misses the point entirely. Quite simply, the Pope is no economist.
Now before everyone thinks I'm going to say we can just safely ignore his teaching if you end up not liking it, no, we really can't. While there is a difference in weight one might place on issues like the immorality of contraception or abortion and the amount of government involvement in an economy, his voice should carry great weight for Catholics. The Holy Father is a pastor of souls, and the care of souls is his primary concern. This leads to a truth that might shock you, so take a deep breath.
There are quite a few ways to respond to this, outside of the obvious that they probably don't know much about either Francis or John Paul II. First and foremost, whatever happened in Argentina, a military dictatorship known for its rank nepotism could hardly be viewed as a capitalist entity. Yet this misses the point entirely. Quite simply, the Pope is no economist.
Now before everyone thinks I'm going to say we can just safely ignore his teaching if you end up not liking it, no, we really can't. While there is a difference in weight one might place on issues like the immorality of contraception or abortion and the amount of government involvement in an economy, his voice should carry great weight for Catholics. The Holy Father is a pastor of souls, and the care of souls is his primary concern. This leads to a truth that might shock you, so take a deep breath.
How to Handle Doubt
For the moment, people seem to be calming down about Pope Francis and are back to adopting the "wait and see" approach. Sure, there are those whining in comment boxes, but I think a lot of people got the initial surprise of the decision out of their system. Reality has set in. Pope Francis is Pope Francis, he is my pope and your pope. There really is no point condemning the decision if you don't like it, unless you would like to discover just how little your opinion matters when he is still the Pope.
I've tried to do my best to point out the past few days that even if the way the guys like "New Catholic" handled this were truly atrocious, that's not to say his worry is completely unfounded. If they go to far, I think others are doing the same when they are dismissing the existence of doubt as proof the "doubters" have a lack of faith, are enemies of the Church, etc etc. My answer would be, maybe not.
We hear constantly in the media that the choice of a new Pope is obviously "the choice and work of the Holy Spirit." This is not inherently true. We pray for the Cardinals to be guided by the Holy Spirit, but any cursory reading of history (say anywhere from the year 1000 to the reign of St. Pius V) will have popes that were bad popes. The Holy Spirit didn't directly will Benedict IX.
What the Holy Spirit was successful in doing however was keeping these popes from teaching error and leading the faithful astray. So if we are doubting on the issue of whether or not Pope Francis is going to destroy the faith and lead the faithful Catholics into error (as some of the more unhinged commenters in some traditionalists blogs are doing), then yes, you are doing it wrong. Yet if we doubt that a particular decision of this or any pope will always be the best decision or the best choice? There's nothing wrong with that, and that kind of questioning can be healthy, provided it is handled in the right manner.
Doubt is a human emotion. As it is an emotion, it is not something you can just will away. Instead, we need to question that doubt as aggressively as possible. As Kevin O'Brien states, we must "doubt the doubt." I don't have to tell anyone, concupiscence sucks. It warps natural and even healthy emotions and twists them into something sinful. The best thing we can do is remember this fact whenever we begin to doubt.
Then we need to try and see things from the other way, and accept at least a fifty-fifty chance we could be dead wrong in our predictions. After that, concede that even if we are 90% sure of something, that ten percent is real and it exists, and always temper our statements with that in mind. When others take a different position on how a prediction will play out, we can view them as misguided and likely wrong, but until the event plays out precisely how we viewed it, we can't state for certain they are wrong.
Finally, when you have that doubt, go do something else. All of this scandal would've likely been avoided had people went and had a drink, a smoke, hit the gym, say a rosary, something instead of jumping to social media in the first five minutes where we can anonymously type behind a keyboard and people who look at things precisely the same way we do agree with our outrage and heap up on the outrage in hopes more people see it and becoming even more outraged and, well you get the picture.
This kind of attitude isn't going to drive blog traffic. Yet it will soothe your nerves and help you to focus on those things which we actually have control over.
I've tried to do my best to point out the past few days that even if the way the guys like "New Catholic" handled this were truly atrocious, that's not to say his worry is completely unfounded. If they go to far, I think others are doing the same when they are dismissing the existence of doubt as proof the "doubters" have a lack of faith, are enemies of the Church, etc etc. My answer would be, maybe not.
We hear constantly in the media that the choice of a new Pope is obviously "the choice and work of the Holy Spirit." This is not inherently true. We pray for the Cardinals to be guided by the Holy Spirit, but any cursory reading of history (say anywhere from the year 1000 to the reign of St. Pius V) will have popes that were bad popes. The Holy Spirit didn't directly will Benedict IX.
What the Holy Spirit was successful in doing however was keeping these popes from teaching error and leading the faithful astray. So if we are doubting on the issue of whether or not Pope Francis is going to destroy the faith and lead the faithful Catholics into error (as some of the more unhinged commenters in some traditionalists blogs are doing), then yes, you are doing it wrong. Yet if we doubt that a particular decision of this or any pope will always be the best decision or the best choice? There's nothing wrong with that, and that kind of questioning can be healthy, provided it is handled in the right manner.
Doubt is a human emotion. As it is an emotion, it is not something you can just will away. Instead, we need to question that doubt as aggressively as possible. As Kevin O'Brien states, we must "doubt the doubt." I don't have to tell anyone, concupiscence sucks. It warps natural and even healthy emotions and twists them into something sinful. The best thing we can do is remember this fact whenever we begin to doubt.
Then we need to try and see things from the other way, and accept at least a fifty-fifty chance we could be dead wrong in our predictions. After that, concede that even if we are 90% sure of something, that ten percent is real and it exists, and always temper our statements with that in mind. When others take a different position on how a prediction will play out, we can view them as misguided and likely wrong, but until the event plays out precisely how we viewed it, we can't state for certain they are wrong.
Finally, when you have that doubt, go do something else. All of this scandal would've likely been avoided had people went and had a drink, a smoke, hit the gym, say a rosary, something instead of jumping to social media in the first five minutes where we can anonymously type behind a keyboard and people who look at things precisely the same way we do agree with our outrage and heap up on the outrage in hopes more people see it and becoming even more outraged and, well you get the picture.
This kind of attitude isn't going to drive blog traffic. Yet it will soothe your nerves and help you to focus on those things which we actually have control over.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Reverse Pope Worship (Or why the identity of the Pope isn't as important as you think)
I'm one of the old school traditionalist bloggers, if you can count "old school" as the early 2000's. When I started Restore the Church, I wanted to provide a place for balanced traditionalist commentary. I wanted to call things as they existed, yet doing so with respect for the Church and the papacy. I also wanted to avoid what I viewed pope-worship by many "conservatives." These individuals typically treated every utterance of the pope (or more often their flawed interpretation) as the inspired word of God, and if you didn't join them in such assesments, you were a heretic who resisted the Holy Spirit. For them, they needed the permission of the Pope to go to the bathroom.
I think sometimes my traditionalist brethren do the reverse. To them, the Latin Mass and the traditionalist movement is one papal utterance away from obliteration. While technically true, would it really hurt to have a bit of faith in God? We believe the Latin Mass is the most beautiful thing this side of heaven. 8 years ago we lived in Indult Ghettos. My mass was literally in the ghetto, right across the street from a strip club, on Sundays at 4pm, in the murder capital of America, so when it was dark, barely anyone came. We also were forbidden by the Bishop from advertising its existence. Yet we were brave (or incredibly stubborn) and went, and from time to time it even grew.
In 2013, that Latin Mass still exists. It is joined by two parishes in the Archdiocese of Detroit offering the Extraordinary Form every Sunday and several times throughout the week. They are joined by a Church a few minutes across the border in Canada, and at least 3 or 4 different churches in a 15 mile radius who offer the Latin Mass at least once a month. When it was time to choose the priest to say our nuptial mass, I could think of ten priests in the metro detroit area alone.
Now some will state that this is not a typical experience. To which I say you are darn right it isn't. Detroit got where it was through some outstanding priests, and a lot of really energetic laymen who were very creative in promoting the Latin Mass. Once the Pope allowed such instances to come into being, they ran with it. They didn't need a papal bull laying out every detail of how to do it. When people complained about how they wished priests and the pope were even more accomodating, they snapped "well what are you going to do about it? Complain to the choir?"
The other big contributor to the growth of the Extraordinary Form was people finally realized not all traditionalists are like the Rorate Caeli crowd. The church at large found out that the traditionalist movement was stacked with young guns whose mind was as sharp as their wit, and all of them had broods of children who knew the Latin Mass better at age 5 than most adults did 50 years ago. They are even becoming less socially akward! Better yet, they weren't a bunch of cranky boogeymen yelling at people to get off their liturgical lawn. They were too busy living out their Catholic family life to be sucked into some echo chamber on blogs and social media.
Don't get me wrong, what Pope Benedict XVI did with the motu proprio was important. Yet the success or failure of the traditionalist movement has always resided with the people who are traditionalists. If we believe in the beauty of the Latin Mass, God will preserve it. Even in the remote possiblity this pope or any pope were to ban the Latin Mass or severly restrict its usage, the enemies of tradition would just learn again what they learned last time: you can't kill this mass, and you can't snuff out tradition within the souls of the faithful. When the Latin Mass would rise again, there will be those like me, dancing a jig on the graves of those individuals who were foolish enough to try.
I think sometimes my traditionalist brethren do the reverse. To them, the Latin Mass and the traditionalist movement is one papal utterance away from obliteration. While technically true, would it really hurt to have a bit of faith in God? We believe the Latin Mass is the most beautiful thing this side of heaven. 8 years ago we lived in Indult Ghettos. My mass was literally in the ghetto, right across the street from a strip club, on Sundays at 4pm, in the murder capital of America, so when it was dark, barely anyone came. We also were forbidden by the Bishop from advertising its existence. Yet we were brave (or incredibly stubborn) and went, and from time to time it even grew.
In 2013, that Latin Mass still exists. It is joined by two parishes in the Archdiocese of Detroit offering the Extraordinary Form every Sunday and several times throughout the week. They are joined by a Church a few minutes across the border in Canada, and at least 3 or 4 different churches in a 15 mile radius who offer the Latin Mass at least once a month. When it was time to choose the priest to say our nuptial mass, I could think of ten priests in the metro detroit area alone.
Now some will state that this is not a typical experience. To which I say you are darn right it isn't. Detroit got where it was through some outstanding priests, and a lot of really energetic laymen who were very creative in promoting the Latin Mass. Once the Pope allowed such instances to come into being, they ran with it. They didn't need a papal bull laying out every detail of how to do it. When people complained about how they wished priests and the pope were even more accomodating, they snapped "well what are you going to do about it? Complain to the choir?"
The other big contributor to the growth of the Extraordinary Form was people finally realized not all traditionalists are like the Rorate Caeli crowd. The church at large found out that the traditionalist movement was stacked with young guns whose mind was as sharp as their wit, and all of them had broods of children who knew the Latin Mass better at age 5 than most adults did 50 years ago. They are even becoming less socially akward! Better yet, they weren't a bunch of cranky boogeymen yelling at people to get off their liturgical lawn. They were too busy living out their Catholic family life to be sucked into some echo chamber on blogs and social media.
Don't get me wrong, what Pope Benedict XVI did with the motu proprio was important. Yet the success or failure of the traditionalist movement has always resided with the people who are traditionalists. If we believe in the beauty of the Latin Mass, God will preserve it. Even in the remote possiblity this pope or any pope were to ban the Latin Mass or severly restrict its usage, the enemies of tradition would just learn again what they learned last time: you can't kill this mass, and you can't snuff out tradition within the souls of the faithful. When the Latin Mass would rise again, there will be those like me, dancing a jig on the graves of those individuals who were foolish enough to try.
What We Do (and don't) Know about Pope Francis
So day one of the papacy has come and gone, and everyone is parsing it. Sounds like a lot of fun. Let me try the same!
First, what do we know of his past? According to the SSPX sympathizers at Rorate Caeli, "The application of Summorum Pontificum in the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires has been non-existent." Fr. Z and others debunked this almost immediately. "New Catholic" (I suppose 9 years ago when he was first blogging this was appropriate, now I think its just dumb, but personal preference) then moved the goalposts back. Okay, Pope Francis as a Cardinal did setup a Latin Mass within 48 hours of Summorum Pontificum. However, the Mass was not celebrated as he liked it, ergo it was "non-existent." Yet the moving goalposts aside, he presented information that is not going to make any traditionalist smile.
Now while I sound a bit flippant there, I don't want to be too hard on him. It is obvious that the conclave did not go the way he wanted to. Instead of doing something else, he did what anyone this age does, he went to social media to vent his frustrations. In the course of that, he overstated his case a bit. I don't think any traditionalist can say with a straight face that His Holiness as His Eminence was the kind of cardinal traditionalists dream about. (Nope, our hearts are only with you, O Ranjith!) Yet facts are facts. He clearly stated something that wasn't true. Combine that with something else he had an SSPX sympathizer write. We must fear Pope Francis because "he has no Curial experience." Belonging to the group that had such traditionalist luminaries as Cardinals Sodano and Bertone is an interesting criterion for we traditionalists to employ. The author also stated that as a Cardinal His Holiness was weaksauce on gay marriage. "New Catholic" had to walk that back in a later post, noting that his opposition to gay marriage, far from being weak, was "beautiful."
New Catholic probably should have hit the gym or an adoration chapel before posting. He enraged a lot of Catholics (most of them traditionalists), had to spend the past 24 hours walking back what he wrote in haste, and now is on a recess for an indefinite time. That's probably for the best. Give him time to clear his head, and perhaps write with a bit more charity, but also clarity.
Dr. Taylor Marshall (a fine traditionalist is he) wants to write as much as he can about the Holy Father that is positive. I hope to write in a balanced and truthful manner. Fr. Z provides photos of The Holy Father's first Mass as Pope which ended the conclave. As a traditionalist, there's no sense denying there are changes from Pope Benedict I don't like. I don't like it going back to versus populum. The Latin wasn't as crisp as it probably should be. Honestly, I never liked the mass concelebrations in the Novus Ordo Mass, even when Benedict did them. I don't think its bad mouthing the Pope to say I'm not a fan of that style, and I would prefer a style more in line with what Pope Benedict XVI did. Then again, I could say that while I was okay with what Benedict did, I would've far rather preferred he celebrate Mass the way Pope Pius XII or St. Pius X did. If I'm impossible to please, pray for the woman I'm marrying in under 3 months. She will have to put up with me.
So while I wasn't too thrilled with the liturgy, his homily was borderline epic. He stated a Church without Christ was little better than a "pitiful NGO", and that without Christ, there are priests, bishops, even popes, but not disciples. He then rounded it out by stating he who didn't pray to God prayed to the devil, and hinted at shake ups coming. Traditionalists might not like him, but if this is what he is about, we can talk turkey and do business with him. I can't get too thrilled about the liturgy he celebrated. But there's a lot to like in his homily that makes you want to see more. Heck, see something!
And that was the whole point of yesterday. It isn't that I don't share the concerns of the Rorate crowd, I do. Yet if we end up ginning outrageous outrage over something that never happens, we look dumb. We might even be guilty of scandal and leading people astray. I go to Confession enough, and I doubt my confessor wants to listen to me constantly confessing rash judgement and causing scandal. There are things in this pontificate I will not like, just as there were in the previous two of my life. There will be times I would wish he does something different, and I'm certain I'll say that out loud here. Yet in the end, traditionalists maybe make up 2% of the worlds Catholics on a generous day. We can't even get everyone in our own parishes to do what we want (yes, even in our traditional parishes), so perhaps we should be focusing on something which is far easier for us to control and influence? Look, either we are like the old "Neo-Catholics" who depend on the Pope's actions to breathe, or the beauty of tradition is that it is beyond any Pope, even one who does things which will at times moderately irritate you when you have to submit and be obedient about the manner.
In the meantime, there are still souls to save, and a gorgeous liturgy to promote. So if you'll excuse me...
First, what do we know of his past? According to the SSPX sympathizers at Rorate Caeli, "The application of Summorum Pontificum in the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires has been non-existent." Fr. Z and others debunked this almost immediately. "New Catholic" (I suppose 9 years ago when he was first blogging this was appropriate, now I think its just dumb, but personal preference) then moved the goalposts back. Okay, Pope Francis as a Cardinal did setup a Latin Mass within 48 hours of Summorum Pontificum. However, the Mass was not celebrated as he liked it, ergo it was "non-existent." Yet the moving goalposts aside, he presented information that is not going to make any traditionalist smile.
Now while I sound a bit flippant there, I don't want to be too hard on him. It is obvious that the conclave did not go the way he wanted to. Instead of doing something else, he did what anyone this age does, he went to social media to vent his frustrations. In the course of that, he overstated his case a bit. I don't think any traditionalist can say with a straight face that His Holiness as His Eminence was the kind of cardinal traditionalists dream about. (Nope, our hearts are only with you, O Ranjith!) Yet facts are facts. He clearly stated something that wasn't true. Combine that with something else he had an SSPX sympathizer write. We must fear Pope Francis because "he has no Curial experience." Belonging to the group that had such traditionalist luminaries as Cardinals Sodano and Bertone is an interesting criterion for we traditionalists to employ. The author also stated that as a Cardinal His Holiness was weaksauce on gay marriage. "New Catholic" had to walk that back in a later post, noting that his opposition to gay marriage, far from being weak, was "beautiful."
New Catholic probably should have hit the gym or an adoration chapel before posting. He enraged a lot of Catholics (most of them traditionalists), had to spend the past 24 hours walking back what he wrote in haste, and now is on a recess for an indefinite time. That's probably for the best. Give him time to clear his head, and perhaps write with a bit more charity, but also clarity.
Dr. Taylor Marshall (a fine traditionalist is he) wants to write as much as he can about the Holy Father that is positive. I hope to write in a balanced and truthful manner. Fr. Z provides photos of The Holy Father's first Mass as Pope which ended the conclave. As a traditionalist, there's no sense denying there are changes from Pope Benedict I don't like. I don't like it going back to versus populum. The Latin wasn't as crisp as it probably should be. Honestly, I never liked the mass concelebrations in the Novus Ordo Mass, even when Benedict did them. I don't think its bad mouthing the Pope to say I'm not a fan of that style, and I would prefer a style more in line with what Pope Benedict XVI did. Then again, I could say that while I was okay with what Benedict did, I would've far rather preferred he celebrate Mass the way Pope Pius XII or St. Pius X did. If I'm impossible to please, pray for the woman I'm marrying in under 3 months. She will have to put up with me.
So while I wasn't too thrilled with the liturgy, his homily was borderline epic. He stated a Church without Christ was little better than a "pitiful NGO", and that without Christ, there are priests, bishops, even popes, but not disciples. He then rounded it out by stating he who didn't pray to God prayed to the devil, and hinted at shake ups coming. Traditionalists might not like him, but if this is what he is about, we can talk turkey and do business with him. I can't get too thrilled about the liturgy he celebrated. But there's a lot to like in his homily that makes you want to see more. Heck, see something!
And that was the whole point of yesterday. It isn't that I don't share the concerns of the Rorate crowd, I do. Yet if we end up ginning outrageous outrage over something that never happens, we look dumb. We might even be guilty of scandal and leading people astray. I go to Confession enough, and I doubt my confessor wants to listen to me constantly confessing rash judgement and causing scandal. There are things in this pontificate I will not like, just as there were in the previous two of my life. There will be times I would wish he does something different, and I'm certain I'll say that out loud here. Yet in the end, traditionalists maybe make up 2% of the worlds Catholics on a generous day. We can't even get everyone in our own parishes to do what we want (yes, even in our traditional parishes), so perhaps we should be focusing on something which is far easier for us to control and influence? Look, either we are like the old "Neo-Catholics" who depend on the Pope's actions to breathe, or the beauty of tradition is that it is beyond any Pope, even one who does things which will at times moderately irritate you when you have to submit and be obedient about the manner.
In the meantime, there are still souls to save, and a gorgeous liturgy to promote. So if you'll excuse me...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)