Sometimes Being Liked is a Good Thing

For most of its existence, traditionalism has been a rebel movement.  Even the loyal sons of the Church were still looking to shake up the existing order of the Church.  We hated the horrendous liturgies rife with abuse, despised the heterodox theology coming from popular circles, and we hated above all the seeming "conservative" silence or acquiescence on these manners.  To borrow a page from pro wrestling (as a proud smark since the mid 90's), traditionalists were heels, and we loved being heels.  That also meant we weren't interested in cheers or adulation from the powers that be within mainstream Catholicism.  Many times those who were getting cheers were those traditionalists who did nothing but bash their fellow brothers, even the loyal ones. 

As a Matter of Fairness

As reader Cassandra pointed out, Mr. Gonzalez has written a "clarification" based on his remarks, and has kindly translated them and his original article into English.

Scroll to Bottom for Original English

Scroll to Bottom for "Clarification"

Now my brief thoughts:

I've Got a Steel Chair, and I'm not Afraid to Use It!

Well, Dawn Eden's comboxes are certainly gettin wild!  I think we need to establish a few things, so we all have an understanding.

1.)  The Holocaust freaking happened.  Whether it was 6 million or 10 million or whatever, millions upon millions of Jews, as well as millions upon millions of non-jews, were systematically murdered because they were not of the master race.  Hitler saved his largest perversities for the Jews.  This is a historical fact.

2.)  From a purely 100% academic standpoint, one could wonder if the Holocaust occured and still be a Catholic.... I suppose.  Technically speaking, it isn't in the Creed or revealed dogma.

3.)  One could also be a Catholic and state the world is flat or only 7,000 years old.  You'd be a moron, but you could still be Catholic.

4.)  People would be right to conclude that even though you are free to be Catholic and hold this view, something is deeply wrong with you, since you need to resort to the worst of conspiracy theorizing to hold your view.

5.)  To act like this is something Catholics should just ignore because "it isn't of the faith" is just dumb.  It asserts that historical facts copiously documented by all parties involved should be placed on the same footing as the racist musings of crackpot historians.

6.)  Finally, internet traddies of the urine and vinegar wing, wondering why nobody outside of your little enclaves takes you seriously?  You guys are arguing over whether or not one can(or should) deny the Holocaust and still be Catholic.  The rest of us are too busy working on promoting the Latin Mass, actually teaching the Catholic Faith, and evangelizing.

If you've gotta talk about this crap, cut off your internet connection, go to the gym, and go to adoration, and preferably confession.  Other than this post, I'm done talking about this nonsense.


GIFSoup

The Importance of Having Good Sources

Over at Patheos, Dawn Eden has done some good old fashioned investigative reporting.  The traditionalist blog Rorate Caeli has written some criticism of the Holy Father.  Some of it is fair play, some of it is a pretty bad foul, especially in the comboxes, of which I will say more in a bit.  In this criticism, they've relied upon the likes of one Marcelo Gonzalez.  He made the statement that then Cardinal Bergoglio was a "sworn enemy of the Traditional Mass", as well as stating the Cardinal was a demagoguge, known for associating himself with moral reprobates, and silent in opposing abortion and "weakly" opposing homosexual marriage.  Now Rorate, to their credit, walked back some of those criticisms, providing links to their own previous reporting which demonstrated that on the gay marriage front, this guy was talking total nonsense.  Enter Miss Eden's latest.

Making Sense of Tradition

After spending the past few posts outlining what tradition is, what it isn't, and why it matters, I would like to conclude with some general thoughts, and  how Catholics can have a discerning mind with these matters.

First, how does one know if we are dealing with Apostolic Tradition, when they aren't Church historians or theologians?  In this case, the simplest answer really is the correct one.  The Church is very clear on matters of Aposotolic Tradition.  On issues of Apostolic Tradition, the Church is protected by infallability.  We can have confidence that if the Catholic Church proclaims something as an Apostolic Tradition, it is an Apostolic tradition.

The Crisis of the Confessional

As we move onto the Sacrament of Confession over at my weekly column at Catholic Lane, we start off by outlining the problem that faces the Church today when it comes to the sacrament of confession.

Expect at least 4 to 5 columns on this subject over the next month or two.

Why Tradition Matters

After wrecking the Roman Rite for roughly two or three decades, Msgr. Annibale Bugnini wanted to make even further changes to the spiritual lives of Catholics.  His next "reform" was to radically alter the Rosary.  His proposal was firmly rejected by Pope Paul VI, and the reasoning behind it is the point of this column today.

Making an Idol of Tradition

In order to get a proper understanding of the role tradition plays within the life of the Catholic Church, we sometimes need to encounter some uncomfortable realities.  One of these is that sometimes, traditionalists (and sometimes all Catholics as well!) make an idol out of tradition.

Divine Mercy Sunday and the New Birth

This Sunday we celebrate what traditionally was known as either Low Sunday or Quasimodo Sunday.  In 2000, Blessed John Paul II decreed that Low Sunday would be known as Divine Mercy Sunday, promoting and recognizing the explosive growth of Catholic devotion towards Christ's mercy over the last 70 years.

According to the Diary of St. Faustina, Jesus wanted the feast after Easter to be known as Mercy Sunday. 

Why Traditionalists Have a Point

So there's been a ton of concern trolling about how bad traditionalists have looked over the whole footwashing issue, and how they really just need to pipe down.    Yet little noticed is how even if some might have reacted badly, there was a point behind it all.  This point was proved by Fr. Thomas Rosica of the Vatican's Press Office in a statement on Pope Francis' ignoring of established liturgical laws.  It is statements like this that make traditionalism so appealing.  I'd like to examine why. 

First, it speaks of the populist nature that is inherent in traditionalism.  According to Fr. Rosica, liturgical rubrics really just matter to experts instead of the faithful.  This kind of thinking is what led to the wasteland of the Post Vatican II era.  It essentially tells the Catholic faithful to keep their mouths shut, don't care about what is in the liturgy, just pray, pay, and obey.  This kind of age led to rampant liturgical abuse, and tracked in almost linear fashion with the decline of faith following the Council.  Blessed John Paul II admitted near the end of his pontificate that he allowed this attitude to fester way too much, and that it damaged far more than just the state of the liturgy.  It is for this reason that the work Redemptionis Sacramentum states the following:

On the contrary, it is the right of all of Christ’s faithful that the Liturgy, and in particular the celebration of Holy Mass, should truly be as the Church wishes, according to her stipulations as prescribed in the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms. Likewise, the Catholic people have the right that the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass should be celebrated for them in an integral manner, according to the entire doctrine of the Church’s Magisterium. Finally, it is the Catholic community’s right that the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist should be carried out for it in such a manner that it truly stands out as a sacrament of unity, to the exclusion of all blemishes and actions that might engender divisions and factions in the Church.
 

 In the end, it doesn't really matter whether or not someone is a liturgical scholar or expert.  They still have an expectation of a liturgy according to the norms.

Dr. Edward Peters also touches on another problem with the statement:  it presents a separation between law and spirit which, quite frankly, isn't Catholic.  Quite the contrary, any authentic Catholic reform comes from a healthy obedience to laws and regulations concerning Catholic practice.  Religious orders were only restored via a return (in many cases a radical one) return to their rules and constitutions surrounding their following.  The beauty of the reform of the Counter-Reformation was how the Church shed those practices which led to the flouting of Church laws.  Once those laws were followed with greater frequency, general holiness flourished, the Church won converts, and some of the highest level of thought occurred.  Christ did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.  Most of the calls for reform since the Council have followed the outline Fr. Rosica advocates, and the results have been by all accounts disastrous.  The reforms of the past two pontificates (more or less) rejected this mindset and the results have been far  better.  (Look at the young generation of priests and the overall beliefs of catholics who attend Mass regularly to see that their approach has succeeded.)  Not ideal (such an ideal is not possible this side of the eschaton), but positive.

These concerns aren't just the concerns of traditionalists, and I would argue that is what makes our way of doings things so appealing to many in light of this controversy.