I often wonder what it is that critics of Summorum Pontificum are really objecting to.
Some say that they object to the "out dated" ecclesiology.
Quite often I think their objections go deeper… to Catholic moral teaching.
Traditional liturgy usually goes hand in hand with traditional Catholic teaching on faith and morals.
I suspect most critics of the older Mass don’t, for one reason or another, want traditional teaching about morals.
"But Father, but Father!", some of you are saying, "what set this off? Did you find some interesting news item that got you thinking about this?"
How well you know me. Take a look at this. There will be a series of talks on homosexuality at the very church where I helped out with the Triduum.
A Men’s Forum for Catholic Apologetics
Second Tuesday of the Month, from October through May
Church of St. Augustine, South St. Paul, MNFather Echert [see here and here for what I have written about him before]
will be giving his presentation,"Straight Talk on Homosexuality: The Catholic Perspective"
The menu
Appetizer:
Ridiculously Good Smoked Beef Rib Tips and Smoked Salmon
Dinner:
Smoked Beef Brisket, and Charcoal Roasted Sirloin Tip (Seasoned to perfection and you can smother it with either one of our two kinds of Sauces, 1st a thick rich peppery red wine herbed mushroom sauce, 2nd a sweet rich robust BBQ Sauce.
Kent’s Awesome Potato Salad
Sassy Green Beans
Hearty Bread
Desert:
Triple Chocolate Cake covered in wild berries served with Chocolate Espresso Ice cream and everything gets smothered in a Chocolate liqueur Sauce.Tuesday, April 8th
Social at 6:30pm (beverages and appetizers)
Dinner at 7:00pm
Total cost for the evening is $12 at the door [sheesh! At that price you can’t afford not to go!]There will be time for you to agree or disagree with our speaker during the Q&A, which starts immediately following dessert. But you are all encouraged to enjoy the good humor, food and fellowship. We enjoy the company of men from all different creeds and ages. Priests and seminarians get in for free but are not shown any partiality in debate. Fathers may bring their sons as long as they accompany them.
St. Augustine Catholic Church
5th Ave. N. & 3rd St. N
South St. Paul, MN
This event is clear for men only.
Loading ...
“Outdated”: “If you marry the spirit of your age, you will be a widow in the next.” — Dean William Inge, Dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral
Hello Father…interesting title! What are they afraid of, indeed? Here’s another example: When I became parish council president at our small parish, I wanted to purchase cassocks and surplices for our altar servers. I had grown up wearing them as an alar boy, and I think they are far superior to the (pardon the adjective) hideous effeminate(?) “monastic gowns” the servers wear. I though that perhaps the issue was money or some such.
Our pastor, who is a good and faithful priest, was shocked I’d make the suggestion…”that’s old fashioned” he said, “besides, the bishop has said it’s to be this style.” Being obedient, I dropped the subject…but I was disappointed. What’s so bad about “old fashioned” anyway?
Agreed. We would call it “faithfulness,” they would call it “rigidity” — both in liturgical and moral matters. The people who see being “pious and overly devotional” as a barrier to the priesthood are the same people who encouraged ordination of known homosexuals, in spite of Biblical, traditional, and Roman (John XXIII’s decree) commands against it.
Father,
If you or Father Echert are recording this, would you mind posting a link? It would make interesting comparison with Father Groschel’s talk on the same subject last night on Sunday Night Live, and could prove helpful to parents of teenage sons (like myself). If you watched, Father G and his priest guests veered off into some beneficial discussion of chastity in general, and I suspect this discussion will as well.
Thanks!
Certainly the old Mass by its very nature does raise the “spectre” of the eternal truths of our faith. All of them: morals, petrine primacy, traditional piety, and its philosophic handmaids of logic and reason as opposed to sentimentality and emotion, favored by so many today. The NO could still reflect the eternal truths also had it been implemented organically. But, it wasn’t done organically, and not only that, the TLM was aggressively suppressed, and those 2 facts tell us the mind of those controlling those changes and why now they do not wish its return, except perhaps as a concession to nostalgia. I also believe that if one can get the attention of good NO Catholics and compare the words and ritual side by side of the TLM and their typical NO, something will click in too many of them, so “liberals” oppose its return on that ground as well.
People will oppose the old Mass for any one of these reasons. OTOH, My pastor, a good NO priest, will not hear of the TLM. Not sure why not, he is old, maybe he doesn’t want to relearn it, maybe it is too detailed, maybe he belives the vernacular is best for people. So for him, I don’t think the above paragraph applies.
I am confused! Why is this talk wrong, we do not know the postion and Couage could very well be benefiting from said talk. As far as a men’s only, there might have been a need coming from the Men’s group that meets there to speak about this subject. I’m sure there are ladies only groups as well and some of the issues they might need should be addressed as needed.
Is the talk about homosexuality that you find fault with. Courage works within the Catholic Community and I understand is very helpful. Remember hate the sin love the sinner.
It doesn’t take a whole evening to read Leviticus 20:13 does it?!?!?
Maybe women can get carryout? (Honestly, that food sounds great.)
Heck, with a meal like that for $12 I might sit through a lecture on theology by Fr. Kung or even a campaign speech by Miz Clinton!
But seriously I believe you are correct that liturgical and moral heterodoxy go hand-in-hand. Perhaps it is a generalization, but a number of individuals come quickly to mind who have been quite influential in promoting both novelties in liturgical praxis and also advancing “progressive” interpretations of Catholic morality. Some have even run afoul of the civil and ecclesial authorities by acting upon their unorthodox “interpretations”!
Amongst the plausible explanations I have always been fascinated by the theory that the de-masculinization of the liturgy was accomplished by men who had (at least) tendencies toward an “inverse orientation”, the logical product of which has been a liturgy which discourages normally-oriented males (both from attending Mass and from pursuing vocations) while instead attracting the sort of men who have caused so many of the problems of the “Boston” type.
But I doubt it is quite that simple…
Volpius,
I think you meant St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Christians should not kill others except under extreme circumstances i.e. self-defense.
-MJE
“I am confused! Why is this talk wrong[?]”
Carmine:
I do not think that Father Zuhlsdorf is implying that at all. Given the track record of Fr. Echert in matters liturgical AND Fr. Z’s remark that “Traditional liturgy usually goes hand in hand with traditional Catholic teaching on faith and morals” it was plain to me that he was expressing full approval of this talk, not excluding the menu!
I think that if you re-read his comments you will see what he is really saying.
;-)
The “traditional Catholic faith and morals” crowd are not necessarily anti-gay. A better description would be pro-chastity, as one of the early comments notes. The trouble often is the fact that the Church haven’t really done a brilliant job of teaching us how to live chastely.
We are many, many gay Catholics who consider ourselves very much part of the “traditional Catholic faith and morals” crowd, and also many who are very serious about worship. Go to any Latin mass, TLM or Novus Ordo, and you are likely to find a sizable minority of gay men.
Most of us would prefer that the endless hyper-policital discussions about the place of gay people in the Church would stop. We just want to continue our lives as family and iron out the faith and morals with our confessors.
I feel much more comfortable among the traditionalists for precisely the opposite reason than Father Z speculates. The traditional liturgy, and the folks with whom I worship, are sources of strength that help me to love my partner and to be fruitful, without all that political baggage!
I wonder if any other readers have observed an unusually high number of gay families at traditionally conservative parishes. Might it be for the same reason: namely, that traditional parishes carry LESS, NOT MORE political baggage, because we focus on worship rather than politics?
“Volpius,
I think you meant St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Christians should not kill others except under extreme circumstances i.e. self-defense.”
St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans is good but Leviticus 20:13 is quicker and straight to the point.
As a famous priest said,
“In many dioceses, a Dignity chapter would be more welcome than an Una Voce chapter.”
Many years ago in seminary, my professor of Sacred Liturgy taught that, “Liturgy is Morality!” Our blessed Lord and Savior, by His suffering and death on the cross won the victory over the powers of sin, Satan and death. In the Holy Mass, which is the re-presentation and proclamation of Christ’s victory over the powers of darkness, we make ourselves one with His victory.
If we are still held bound by the power of sin and immorality in our personal lives, there is no victory to proclaim or to celebrate. As we know, true participation in the liturgy is an internal and moral participation without which liturgy is reduced to “smells, bells, and copes.”
Wow… Unimaginable out here to have church meetings with such indulgent menu. This is more like a fancy restaurant treat at a discount – as someone pointed out the talk is merely an icing on the top.
Can’t you Americans just meet to talk without stuffing yourselves with tons of food?
This is super, and I’m all for male only get togethers. But, when exactly do the women get together to talk shop?
Serafino: A very good comment! It calls to mind what I have tried carefully to underscore when examining critics of Pope Benedict, such as Fr. Mark Francis. They subtly suggest that hidden in a desire for older forms of liturgy there is something not quite right, at best a kind of personal aestheticism, at worse an indication of effeminate proclivities, which I consider little better than slimy.
Andy,
In a word- NO.
JPG
Serafino are you saying you have joined the Angelic Host..? free at last eh..!
I had words with a SSPX priest lately on a very fierce sermon where the “most appalling mortal sins” where being confessed by members of the congregation. There were less than 100 people present, luckily I hadn’t been to confession to this particular priest for ages, so unless I’ve seared him to the bone last time…it wasn’t me folks…and I must say none of the rest struck me as mass murderers. We are human, and that means all of us, every single one of us, all 6 Billion of us. Jesus didn’t turn anyone away, only Judas and the man who had observed the Law from his youth, turned themselves away from Jesus. We cannot claim to be free from sin this side of the grave, but I detect an unhealthy air of perfectionism around some traditionalists.
Wayne: I had words with a SSPX priest lately on a very fierce sermon where the “most appalling mortal sins” where being confessed by members of the congregation.
For all his zeal, that was extremely imprudent! He should keep his mouth shut about such things (even if he doesn’t have faculties to hear confessions).
That macho menu will surely deter the poor buggers who most need to hear the talk!
Virgil wrote:
“The “traditional Catholic faith and morals” crowd are not necessarily anti-gay. A better description would be pro-chastity, as one of the early comments notes. The trouble often is the fact that the Church haven’t really done a brilliant job of teaching us how to live chastely.
)(
No, Virgil is correct on this. The modern Church has failed everyone in living the cardinal virtues. The present Church is too obsessed with the socialism of everything to the neglect of everything else.
This is what the True Church teaches. EVERYONE is called to the tenets of poverty, **chastity** and obedience according to the individual’s state of life. People can be the richest or most popular in the world and still practice the enriching aesthetics of the spirit of poverty in their daily lives and does not mean purposely running around looking and acting like a bum.
In regards to chastity, this is the same for everyone. Unless a man and woman are paired in vowed, convenantal relationships–marriage, NO ONE may act out sexually, period. The individual gay person is called to the same state of life as any straight person–love of God and the Church, charity towards one another and as frequent reception of Communion as possible. The Church makes no distinction on who or “what” a person is. ALL are obligated to elevate themselves in the sight of God.
)(
Virgil wrote further:
“We are many, many gay Catholics who consider ourselves very much part of the “traditional Catholic faith and morals” crowd, and also many who are very serious about worship. Go to any Latin Mass, TLM or Novus Ordo, and you are likely to find a sizable minority of gay men.”
)(
Likely to find? How would we know this, and not to be unkind, but why would we care? If gays–or anyone else–are there to worship in spirit and in truth, great. This goes for everyone else, unless your conduct is untoward, who cares who’s there?
)(
Virgil wrote further:
“Most of us would prefer that the endless hyper-policital discussions about the place of gay people in the Church would stop. We just want to continue our lives as family and iron out the faith and morals with our confessors.
I feel much more comfortable among the traditionalists for precisely the opposite reason than Father Z speculates. The traditional liturgy, and the folks with whom I worship, are sources of strength that help me to love my partner and to be fruitful, without all that political baggage!
I wonder if any other readers have observed an unusually high number of gay families at traditionally conservative parishes. Might it be for the same reason: namely, that traditional parishes carry LESS, NOT MORE political baggage, because we focus on worship rather than politics?”
)(
Virgil, again, why would we care who’s there? Unless gays are carrying on with conduct contrary to the standard norm in church, e.g., holding hands or kissing each other, etc., or any form of demeanor which proclaims the “gayness” of the person, WHAT IS THERE TO NOTICE?
In this I find you to be hypocritical. You asked to left alone, that the hyper-political nonsense be done away with, etc. Okay. Fine. In that, why do you need–crave–attention to your homosexuality? If you and your “partner” are in church truly to worship and love God according to tenets of our Faith, welcome. If, however, you are there worshiping, knowing full well you are living a state of life you know–and you do–the Church has condemned, I pray God you are NOT receiving Communion. Objectively speaking, you cannot reconcile a gay relationship and worthily receive Communion.
God bless you on your faith journey.
There is a lot more to this event than meets the eye. This is part of a series called the argument of the month club (www.aotmclub.com) hosted each month at St. Augustine. Father Echert is a wonderful advocate of continuing education and a wonderful and orthodox priest. I was at Good Friday liturgy ten days ago, celebrated by Fr. Z.
Anyway, this topic was supposed to be covered during the January 2008 monthly event. The scheduled speaker at the time was Archbishop Nienstadt. Due to issues with his schedule the topic was rescheduled for April and it appears that Fr. Echert will be the speaker.
A local advocacy group was going to plan to be present for the January talk (www.cpcsm.org) and one might expect them to show up next week as well based on what is posted on their site right now with respect to the Archdiocese.
So in addition to quite a meal, you get to be at ground zero for the culture wars….
“Quite often I think their objections go deeper… to Catholic moral teaching.
Traditional liturgy usually goes hand in hand with traditional Catholic teaching on faith and morals. It suspect most critics of the older Mass don’t, for one reason or another, want traditional teaching about morals.”
I could not agree more. The priests who I have mentioned the SP to and who
are known for their ‘liberalism’ have scoffed at it. The priests that I
know who are faithful and who do preach the truths of the faith have
said they are willing to learn it.
This is what I have encountered so far.
As a man who suffers SSA, I can say this…the more I live the faith I profess, the easier it is carry my crosses. The EF has brought a peace to me that I will never be able to find in many OF parishes. I have found an expression of masculinity I would never of considered.
I only wish I could attend this event.
I often find myself longing for the TLM since my town doesn’t have one. I think that the temptation toward “aestheticism” in traditional-minded Catholics is fought with a good personal prayer life. If one isn’t communicating with God on a regular basis, what does he bring to the Mass? It’s much like marriage. If the only communication is the marital embrace, then the relationship does not have the depth it was meant to have. Holy Communion is the “source and summit” of the Christian life, but that implies that there is a hierarchy of devotion/communion with God. If one ignores this, and the Mass is all the prayer life you have, then it is quite natural for obsession with the rituals of the Mass to become a veneer for piety.
One huge problem that arises, at least in terms of attempting to articulate positions in a discussion on any level, is the conflation of vocabulary. Are we going to use gay to refer just to person with homosexual tendencies, or does it necessarily imply support for the grab-bag of anti-social political agendas that tend to be labeled gay rights? If the unadorned word gay means the former (since we seem sadly unlikely to go back to it meaning “happily carefree”), the latter senses are misleading. But it seems very difficult to establish satisfactory linguistic parameters for this or any other discussion today. I am not going to think any less of you — nor should I — if you have temptations x, y, or z. That’s entirely distinct from my reaction to your wearing women’s clothes, engaging in sexual activities with other men, and noisily advocating for a plethora of noxious public policies. People with severe temptations of any sort may very well, as they have always been, nourished by the EF. People in the second category are likely, as Fr. Z suggests, to see the liturgy as a bellwether of their other problems with the Church.
No Wayne, I haven’t yet joined the “Angelic Hosts.” LOL. All of us are poor sinners and need the forgiveness of Christ. When, through human weakness we fall, and with a humble and contrite heart we repent of our sins and seek the mercy of God in the sacred tribunal of the confessional, we are forgiven and are restored to Divine Grace. This enables us to once again liturgically proclaim, and make the victory of Christ our own in the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Individuals, who reject the moral teachings of Christ and His Church, and live immoral and unrepentant lives, cannot liturgically proclaim to be one with the victory of Christ while still freely choosing to be bound by the darkness of sin and error. In a sense, it is liturgical hypocrisy to publicly proclaim to be in the light of Christ’s victory, while embracing the darkness of sin. Liturgy is morality!
Virgil is right. I’ve seen quite a few gay couples at the SSPX Immaculate Heart of Mary chape in West St. Paul, MN. Furthermore, I spent a few weeks at the SSPX Seminary in Winona, MN, and let me tell you, latent homosexuality , with traditional trappings of course, was everywhere. I do not mean to offend anybody. I’m simply telling you what I’ve seen and experienced.
Fr. Groeschel interviewed Courage founder Fr. John Harvey & Courage director Fr. Paul Check yesterday on Sunday Night Live (EWTN).
Sassy Green Beans
How otre! :^/
–ghp
On lighter note and completely of the subject. Last night on BBC RADIO we heard Berliner Luft played by the Berlin Philharmonic…absolutely brilliant. To day we Googled it, on YouTube there is a clip of Claudio Abbado conducting, it is so full of joy you should all rush there right now…and President George W Bush is doing his day job….playing the double bass, I kid you not. Great stuff. Sorry Fr Z I’ll try not to interrupt in the future. P.S NO COMMENTS ON THIS JUST LOOK AND SEE.
I am inclined to agree that it is really over morals. I’m doing some research right now and I have discovered something concerning the Index of Forbidden Books’ legal abolition in 1966. The moral vigor of it remained in force but no one paid any attention to that line of the document.
So, yes, I think it might be about the morals.
From what I understand, the Church has always shied away from the term “gay” because the use of that term refers not to a condition but an identity. To say one is struggling with a “same-sex attraction,” as one poster did above, is very different from saying one “is gay.” The Church has prudently denied Holy Orders to the later while conferring them on the former after due therepy. I believe there was an article in Crisis on this a few years ago. Anyway, we have to be careful not to buy into the widely held modern belief that a man IS his sexuality, and seek to understand homosexuality as Moses and St. Paul did, that is, as a tendency and a behavior. Every man, by virtue of his nature, is straight. The ancients understood it this way, and so does that Church. That being said, I’ve seen gay couples at Latin Masses and met pot-smokers who wear veils. Traditional morals and traditional taste don’t always go together.
These people should listen to Father John Corapi’s “straight” – pardon the pun – talks on the Catholic Church. He says that if a gay man told him “But Father, the Church is against gays”, he would reply “Oh no – you and I have a lot in common. We are both bound to celibacy – me because of my vow, you because of the way you say you are!”
Good old Father Corapi! He always tells it the way it is!!!!!!
Why does the English Church never offer anything like this?
Don’t bother, I know the answer.
Although this discussion here has focused on homosexuality, with regard to moral issues, it seems to me that the moral issue that “liberated” many Catholics from the magisterium and that coincided with and perhaps helped to fuel the liturgical decline was over birth control and Humanae Vitae.
An apples and oranges comparison. Proponents of the 1962 or earlier missals have no exclusive claim to holiness over mainstream Roman Rite Catholics.
As for what critics of Summorum Pontificum are objecting to, I can\’t speak for others. (And certainly other criticisms offered might have merit.) Speaking for myself, we\’re talking of a ritual form essentially unreformed by the principles of Vatican II, a rite associated with schismatics, and (as this site has conceded) the frequently poor behavior of many of its advocates.
I’d say that the 1962 Missal needs ten to twenty years with a copy of Sacrosanctum Concilium in hand and then we\’d see how traditionalist Catholics would handle the issues of renewal, obedience, and unity. Until then, the 1962 rite remains a backwater of liturgical practice.
Quite frankly, the menu and price sound great. But if this kind of evening is devoted to some kind of self-congratulatory rhetoric with a focus on what other people are doing, I\’d say this lacks much attraction for me. If the discussion is about sin, I\’d prefer to focus on my own with my confessor or spiritual director.
^^^ We haven’t seen a ‘sour grapes’ award in a while…
I am of the opinoin that those who are so set against the old liturgy have a total misunderstanding of Catholic teachings, & very herectical minded in some cases. As I made clear in an earlier posting regards Mass of Ages magazine, it really is all about what is best for us spiritaully, not just about “nice” liturgy, (although nice liturgy is very important.) As far as liberals are concerned, One is rather tired of hearing bishops, especially Scottish ones forever condenming “gays” & telling everyone what the Church teaches, while they themselves are undermining the Holy Church by ignoring papal requests for the traditional mass, and indeed any other kind of traditions.(Like Benediction on Sunday afternoons) They let everything else go by the way. How many of them for example dare to hold to account the number of Catholic politicians who support “pro choice” type legislation? None! The Bishop of Motherwell caused huge controversy recently with his anti gay comments, but what of all the other things condemned by the Church? Also having seen what the Lord Bishop done to his cathedral sanctuary, I’m of the opinion he is moralising simply for the sake of it & not because he genuinely cares for true Catholic teachings and worship. This brings the episcopate into disrepute, making the Church an object of ridicule. All the hierarchy have left to justify themselves is their public pronouncements on morals. But what’s the point of that when the children are not taught the faith at Catholic schools?Of couse we must differentiate between being Gay and gay activists who want everything. The above bishop made the mistake of putting the two together. It’s not like that in reality. I would caution folks against thinking liberal means anti moral, & traditional means old fashioned morals for everything. I think if Vatican 2 was implemented according to what was actualy written down and not the “spirit of V2” the Church would not be in this mess. Having pretty much destroyed true faith,(even if unintentionally) they can’t expect folks to live by true morals!!
As Fr. Zuhlsdorf says “Save the liturgy…Save the world.”
Many postings here are zeroing in on homosexuals – the same would apply to an over-eager attraction to the opposite sex or to using porn. Note that Lev 20:10 carries the same punishment as :13!
The question is, regardless of your spiritual ailment, are you honestly asking the Lord to help free you from it, or have you justified it to yourself – “Well, God made me like this, so it must be OK.” Regular sacramental Confession and receiving Holy Communion is probably the antidote the first needs to get well; probably not so much, the second. Since we’re quoting Fr. Corapi: “There’s a difference between falling into sin and living in sin.”
A gay man who sincerely acknowledges his brokenness before God, and begs for his mercy and healing, saying, “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner!” isn’t really any different than me in that regard.
Comment by Jon — 31 March 2008 @ 9:51 am
If you or Father Echert are recording this, would you mind posting a link? It would make interesting comparison with Father Groschel’s talk on the same subject last night on Sunday Night Live, and could prove helpful to parents of teenage sons (like myself).
These talks are recorded. At this time there is not a way to stream them from the site (aotmclub.com), but an order form is available at: http://www.twinheartsmedia.org/argument-of-the-month.htm. You should be able to get a copy of the talk shortly after April 8th.
The preaching from the pulpit on the tough moral issues seems pretty light these days – let alone any talk of sexual morality! I suspect the scandal has scared most priests from venturing too far into this area. Besides, I think most fear being laughed at – I find most of my peers reserve the right to veto the Church on any teaching they don’t personally like. They think it’s their church. Wrong. It’s His Church.
Still, regarding the connection between the liturgy and morals, perhaps there’s something a bit more clear about gender and familial roles in evidence at Traditional Mass. Men often wear coat & tie; women often wear dresses and veils. Everyone in the sanctuary is male, but women and girls gravitate toward the choir. The roles are much more sharply defined, than the New Mass, where servers, readers, cantors, EMHC’s may be man or woman and co-mingle in the sanctuary. Due to the structure of the liturgy, there’s also a lot less attitude of “whatever you want, whatever makes you feel good.”
The priest at my Traditional Mass isn’t afraid to hit these things in his homilies. He is also a great confessor. It seems that a priest who sees the reinvigoration of the liturgy as his obligation also probably sees the need for sharper preaching of the Gospel as well. Don’t they go hand in hand?
Todd wrote:
“An apples and oranges comparison. Proponents of the 1962 or earlier missals have no exclusive claim to holiness over mainstream Roman Rite Catholics.
As for what critics of Summorum Pontificum are objecting to, I can’t speak for others. (And certainly other criticisms offered might have merit.) Speaking for myself, we’re talking of a ritual form essentially unreformed by the principles of Vatican II, a rite associated with schismatics, and (as this site has conceded) the frequently poor behavior of many of its advocates.
I’d say that the 1962 Missal needs ten to twenty years with a copy of Sacrosanctum Concilium in hand and then we’d see how traditionalist Catholics would handle the issues of renewal, obedience, and unity. Until then, the 1962 rite remains a backwater of liturgical practice.”
)(
In the majority of cases, the ones who adhere to the Tridentine Mass as those who are more informed of their Religion than those of the Novus Ordo. For those who see the Novus Ordo as the end all, their appreciation of the aesthetical and mystical is pretty much lacking including their identity of Roman Catholicsm. With those who are against the Usus Antiquior tend to have a more me-myself-and-I sense of spirituality focused more on feelings and that the idea of rules seems “restrictive.” They are also more inclined to find various “rules–” fasting, weekly Sunday obligations, Confession… to be disgregarded because of their sense of rules. Only God knows the mind and heart, and I certainly don’t claim to, but with enough discussion with such people over time these points seem to have a common repetative streak.
)(
Todd wrote further:
“Quite frankly, the menu and price sound great. But if this kind of evening is devoted to some kind of self-congratulatory rhetoric with a focus on what other people are doing, I’d say this lacks much attraction for me. If the discussion is about sin, I’d prefer to focus on my own with my confessor or spiritual director.”
)(
Todd, you missed the point. It’s a discussion about the sinfulness of the behavior or the concept thereof, not pointing fingers at an individual’s sin. Dicussing the virtue or fault of a behavior ( and the objective sin attached ) is always permissible, of course dependent on time and place. On the other hand, the “sin” of an individual, never! No one knows but God alone.
I also agree with most of Gordon’s comment:
“I am of the opinion that those who are so set against the old liturgy have a total misunderstanding of Catholic teachings, & very heretical minded in some cases. As I made clear in an earlier posting regards Mass of Ages magazine, it really is all about what is best for us spiritually, not just about “nice” liturgy, (although nice liturgy is very important.) As far as liberals are concerned, One is rather tired of hearing bishops, especially Scottish ones forever condemning “gays” & telling everyone what the Church teaches, while they themselves are undermining the Holy Church by ignoring papal requests for the traditional mass, and indeed any other kind of traditions.(Like Benediction on Sunday afternoons) They let everything else go by the way. How many of them for example dare to hold to account the number of Catholic politicians who support “pro choice” type legislation? None!
The Bishop of Motherwell caused huge controversy recently with his anti-gay comments, but what of all the other things condemned by the Church? Also having seen what the Lord Bishop has done to his cathedral sanctuary, I’m of the opinion he is moralising simply for the sake of it & not because he genuinely cares for true Catholic teachings and worship. This brings the episcopate into disrepute, making the Church an object of ridicule. All the hierarchy have left to justify themselves is their public pronouncements on morals. But what’s the point of that when the children are not taught the faith at Catholic schools? Of course we must differentiate between being Gay and gay activists who want everything. The above bishop made the mistake of putting the two together. It’s not like that in reality.
I would caution folks against thinking liberal means anti moral, & traditional means old fashioned morals for everything. I think if Vatican 2 was implemented according to what was actually written down and not the “spirit of V2” the Church would not be in this mess. Having pretty much destroyed true faith,(even if unintentionally) they can’t expect folks to live by true morals!!”
The only thing that offends me about the notice
is the violence done to the English language in the menu!
Interesting thread here, which I think makes exactly the distinction with which the Church struggles, and alluded to by several readers: gay vs homosexual.
Part of the Church, the more traditional part in my opinion, is comfortable with “gay” people. By “gay,” we mean folks like me, who live life in longtime companionship and struggle just like strait married couples to live chastely. We don’t attempt to hide who we are. It’s not a question of public displays of affection. (I live in Italy, so I am daily familiar with how disturbing strait folks can be in this way!) It’s simply a question of wearing rings, having a picture on the desk at work, and showing up with partner and dogs to the parish picnic.
For this part of the Church, chastity and Christian friendship are regular virtues.
But there is another part of the Church, who are obsessive about “homosexuals” and “same-sex attraction disorder.” I find this part of the Church much less rooted in tradition, and much more wedded to some political agenda. This Church, including Bishop Niestedt who was originally scheduled for the talk in Saint Paul, are working at cross purposes with those of us seeking chastity and Christian friendship.
For this part of the Church, the only virtue available to a gay couple is divorce. For this part of the Church, I should be prevented legally from supporting my family financially (taxing gay couples differently), from welcoming the stranger (preventing visas for same-sex partners), from visiting the sick (preventing family visitation), and burying the dead (not allowing same-sex partners to inherit).
We gay Catholics need something akin to John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. The late pontiff brilliantly laid out advice for married couples to live lives of chasitity. He also gives good wisdom for priests and others in vowed life. Yet we gay Catholics have nothing but a few vague prohibitions about bedroom behavior. From these we are left to figure out how to draw sustenance and to build the other 99% of our lives. This is why I and others prefer the workings of the TLM and a holy confessor, to the Modernist ranting of folks like + Nienstedt.
I think this is an incredibly interesting thread.
I just finished reading the book “Women in the Priesthood? A Systematic Analysis in the Light of the Order of Creation and Redemption” by Fr. Manfred Hauke.
In the book (which was written in 1988 – prior to “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” in 1994), Fr. Hauke maintains that a male-only Priesthood is not a result of a “temporarily conditioned conception of woman” which has been codified in canon law; rather the Church’s 2000 year history shows those who have advocated women’s ordination have not been accused of a simple breach of discipline, but of the crime of heresy. Male priesthood, therefore, is a component of sacred Tradition and part of divine law. Hauke claims there are arguments to support this position from “propriety”, grounded in the “order of creation” (which he defines as the “revealed interpretation of the natural order”), that these arguments are “confirmed and strengthened” by those from the “order of redemption” (“which brings creation to fulfillment”), and that the “crucial factor” in resolving the question is, ultimately, “the will of Jesus, which made itself known in the revelation of the New Covenant”.
Why do I bring this up here?
Because, in the sacrament of orders, “the person who is consecrated signifies Christ as Mediator” which at the same time means “Christ as Head”. Men have a primacy in the representation of God in his transcendence due to their relation to the world in which their activity is directed powerfully outward (as in creation), while women, in contrast, more effectively represent God in his immanence. However, “transcendence, with respect to the image of God, possesses the greater significance”. “(T)ranscendence logically presupposes immanence, whereas pantheistic systems remain at the level of immanence.”
Fr. Hauke goes on to explain that those religions which emphasize God’s immanence (and thus de-emphasize the masculine imagry for God) always have a lax moral code, because when “transcendence and immanence are made equivalent by way of introducing masculine and feminine symbolism as equally ranked into the image of God, then this ultimately results in the equivalence between Creator and created…self-idolization of the creature.”
He has done a very in-depth, cross cultural study of this phenomenon.
I would venture to say that the obvious transcendence of God demonstrated in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite would lend itself necessarily to a more stringent moral code, if Fr. Hauke is correct.
Thanks, Mark, for responding in a calm way. I think, however, you’ve fallen into the same ad hominem as presented by our host.
“In the majority of cases, the ones who adhere to the Tridentine Mass as those who are more informed of their Religion than those of the Novus Ordo.”
Another apples and oranges comparison. Most TLM communities are intentional, like religious life, or the radical Catholic parishes on the fringes. If you sampled the Erie Benedictines, they would probably clean the clocks of TLM folks where Scripture was concerned.
I’ve always thought if the TLM’ers were burdened with the no-music, save-my-school, sports-mad, and other special interest groups of the average parish, they’d feel the pinch, too.
“With those who are against the Usus Antiquior tend to have a more me-myself-and-I sense of spirituality focused more on feelings and that the idea of rules seems “restrictive.””
Not from what I’ve seen on the internet. Many TLM folks indulge in intense levels of feelings, calling out people as heretics without a church trial, to name one category. Many TLM advocates are in schism. One could easily posit that Archbishop LeFebvre found Roman rules “restrictive.”
“Todd, you missed the point. It’s a discussion about the sinfulness of the behavior or the concept thereof, not pointing fingers at an individual’s sin.”
Other people on this thread have spoken of the sexual sins of straight males: pornography, contraception, and promiscuity. Talking about the sins or potential sins of one’s target group would seem to be a more timely topic. My bishop has not shied away from addressing the evils of pornography. That draws a lot of snickers from people, but I think his pastoral sense is quite accurate on that one.
“Dicussing the virtue or fault of a behavior ( and the objective sin attached ) is always permissible, of course dependent on time and place.”
Well, sure, it’s permissible. We could discuss cooking tips or play poker or even host a fashion show. That’s all permissible. Adult faith formation presumes we’re not only doing something that’s allowed, but something that’s timely and helpful for the target audience.
If I were planning adult formation for men in a straight community, I wouldn’t think to talk about homosexuality. The indulgence for protecting the “feelings” of the target group by focusing on the problem of another group strikes me as off-target, given the epidemic of sex addiction, substance abuse, or gambling problems among American males.
It isn’t a matter of what’s allowed. It should be a matter of what is needed.
The root cause that must be addressed is a breakdown of reason and logic.
Critical thinking has been replaced with emotional thinking. This has been done systematically in our schools, both public and Catholic. The logical error, “I feel X, so X must be true and good” needs to be beaten with a stick.
Fr. Z is correct, there is a connection between liturgy and morality (Lex orandi…) What does this say about the current state of liturgy? That it’s all about me, and doesn’t have much room for God in it.
I guess on could speculate on why people are circling the wagons against the EF all day and stll be the no wiser, but the fact is people are circling the wagons. And doing so in a manner disproportionate to the controversy. It’s irrational too. When people say in the same breath that few are interested in the EF and that allowing it more will destroy the Church, or void Vatican II, then something is going on beyond mere concern that the EF needs some tweaking. The truth will out, and as fair warning let the SP do it’s thang, because otherwise you are on the path toward Sour Grapeville.
for that meal at that price, it would be almost worth the airfare from Australia!
Todd; good points. I’m wondering why a bunch of straight men would want to sit around talking about homosexuality.
Todd said “Not from what I’ve seen on the internet. Many TLM folks indulge in intense levels of feelings, calling out people as heretics without a church trial, to name one category.”
Todd, Todd, Todd, this is the internet we’re talking about; Obi-Wan’s words about Mos Eisley could easily apply to the net: “Mos Eisley Spaceport. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.”
The anonymity lends itself to intense levels of feelings; for all groups concerned. I could easily rework your sentence to say “Many novus-ordo folks indulge in intense levels of feelings, calling out people as schismatics without a church trial, to name one category.”
To expect anything else of the internet is to be naïve.
Virgil wrote:
“Interesting thread here, which I think makes exactly the distinction with which the Church struggles, and alluded to by several readers: gay vs homosexual.
Part of the Church, the more traditional part in my opinion, is comfortable with “gay” people. By “gay,” we mean folks like me, who live life in longtime companionship and struggle just like strait married couples to live chastely. We don’t attempt to hide who we are. It’s not a question of public displays of affection. (I live in Italy, so I am daily familiar with how disturbing strait folks can be in this way!) It’s simply a question of wearing rings, having a picture on the desk at work, and showing up with partner and dogs to the parish picnic.”
)(
Virgil, stop trying to split hairs. The “gay” vs “homosexuality” is irrelevant. They are not mutually exclusive terms. Both indicate the same state of mind and behavior.
Saying you “struggle just like straight married couples to live chastely” is already an error. I’m not discounting any struggle you may have, but the direction of the struggle is greatly important.
A heterosexual couple–man and woman–yes, must live chastely unto **themselves** and with no other. They are, hopefully, Sacramentally exclusive. A same-sex relationship with any sexual expression is forbidden. A gay/homosexual person does not have the ability whatsoever to engage in a relationship rising to the level of a sacramentally married husband and wife. No one does, not even a man and woman shacking up with each is permissible by this Church. In both cases, the straight and gay “couple” put themselves in the near occasion of sin ( wow, how often have we heard that before? LOL ) and is to be avoided.
Your splitting hairs over this is misguided because on the surface, you are trying to justify your gay/homosexual behavior. There is nothing in this Church which is going to give it sanction.
)(
Virgil wrote further:
“For this part of the Church, chastity and Christian friendship are regular virtues.”
)(
Yes, this is true. Everyone has the right to friendship, and no one has the right to exclude anyone from fellowship. That is a grevious sin against charity, but to the level the friendship is taken needs great circumspection. People can be the greatest of friends, most considerate, helpful and affectionate of the other, but once this reaches the point of sexual attraction and intimacy, the line has been crossed from virtuous to sinful. This includes heterosexuals as well.
)(
Virgil wrote further:
“But there is another part of the Church, who are obsessive about “homosexuals” and “same-sex attraction disorder.” I find this part of the Church much less rooted in tradition, and much more wedded to some political agenda. This Church, including Bishop Niestedt who was originally scheduled for the talk in Saint Paul, are working at cross purposes with those of us seeking chastity and Christian friendship.
)(
Virgil, the Church has always said this is wrong, whether you find this issue of yours “less rooted” in Sacred Tradition or the Bible, etc., does not matter.
Regarding the “social” aspects you described:
1. “I should be prevented legally from supporting my family financially (taxing gay couples differently)”
You are not prevented from supporting your family. The manner in which you do is the same the way any other person is able to do, or not. What specific Italian laws you may be describing, we’ll have to ask Father Z about that as he is more familiar with Italy than we are.
2. “Prevented from welcoming the stranger.”
In what way are you prevented from doing this. This sounds like a very silly and ambiguous statement.
3. “Preventing visas for same-sex partners.”
So? Apply for them individually. Stop running around playing house. You are not on the same footing as a married man and woman. The Church does not allow this and so don’t many states.
5. “Prevented from visiting the sick (preventing family visitation), and burying the dead (not allowing same-sex partners to inherit).
Who visits whom in hospital, etc., yes, needs a little revision there. On that point, what does it matter what the relationship is?
There is nothing under the law–at least not here in the United States–preventing anyone from burying anyone else. I don’t see where this is an issue in Italy as well, but again, we are not there.
As far as inheriting property, fill out a Will. The Will states who gets what and that is enforcable under under law, again, US law, and most modern countries.
)(
Virgil wrote:
“We gay Catholics need something akin to John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. The late pontiff brilliantly laid out advice for married couples to live lives of chasitity. He also gives good wisdom for priests and others in vowed life. Yet we gay Catholics have nothing but a few vague prohibitions about bedroom behavior. From these we are left to figure out how to draw sustenance and to build the other 99% of our lives. This is why I and others prefer the workings of the TLM and a holy confessor, to the Modernist ranting of folks like + Nienstedt.”
)(
Virgil, nothing in this Church is going to offer anything justifying “gay/homosexual” behavior. Ardent prayer, penance, fasting and alms-giving ( and this mean time, talent and energy, not only just giving **things** away ) will help all live a life chastity. The way one looks at something and the attitude in which we desire to conform to the Will of God as presented by His Church is way we get handle on matters of the life we live. In that, we all struggle the same way, however, we must all give up the me-me-me first. Christ Himself said, “My ways are not man’s ways, and man’s way are not My ways!” We must all desire Christ’s ways, not ours.
===========
Habemus wrote:
“Todd; good points. I’m wondering why a bunch of straight men would want to sit around talking about homosexuality.”
)(
Hmm, that sounds like narrow-minded bigotry. I suppose with that way of thinking, straight men are just too superior to discuss certain issues.
“Hmm, that sounds like narrow-minded bigotry. I suppose with that way of thinking, straight men are just too superior to discuss certain issues.”
Not necessarily. It can be the sign of spiritual immaturity to talk of others’ sins. It’s rather easy to preach on abortion to a group of people who would never consider it. It’s another thing, for example, to go to a business meeting and preach the evils of capitalism.
I suppose I wonder why a special speaker would be brought in if the talk wasn’t going to be something potentially challenging to the audience.
LCB wrote:
Critical thinking has been replaced with emotional thinking. This has been done systematically in our schools, both public and Catholic. The logical error, “I feel X, so X must be true and good” needs to be beaten with a stick.
Wow, if only I could get that in emblazoned, 500-foot letters in front of every house, parish and school in the country! Well said.
We seriously need another Belloc and another Chesterton, for our era…
In Christ,
Brian
Virgil…
I’m not even a Christian…but to seek membership in an organization that teaches that two people being of the same sex suffices to forbid sexual activity between them while being determined to act against this is hypocrisy at best.
If you find it difficult to obey work to overcome the difficulties,don’t presume yourself released from obedience while still entitled to benefits.
Matt Q: My point, as I think you probably realise, is that a talk for straight men on sexual morality should concern porn addiction, prostitution,promiscuity areas of temptation for these men. Talking instead about a subject which does not concern them can be seen as deflecting attention. Apart from anything else I find the notion of heterosexual men discussing the ins and outs of homosexuality rather perverse.
It is not perverse for straight men to talk about homosexuality. Homosexual men come from families. Families come from straight men. If you read anything on the origin of same sex attraction (which I, a female straight woman have done) you will see that the bond between father and son is pivotal in developing healthy sexuality. Straight men – fathers especially – MUST discuss homosexuality to parent properly.
avecrux – Very well put!
It is not perverse for straight men to talk about homosexuality. Homosexual men come from families. Families come from straight men. If you read anything on the origin of same sex attraction (which I, a female straight woman have done) you will see that the bond between father and son is pivotal in developing healthy sexuality. Straight men – fathers especially – MUST discuss homosexuality to parent properly.
Comment by avecrux
Sexuality is established on whom someone perceives as the sexual opposite. Homosexual men perceive men as their sexual opposite because they perceive their mothers as their sexual same.
Todd, to go back a bit, it seems to me the only objection with any strength that you make to the ’62 missal is that it is
“a ritual form essentially unreformed by the principles of Vatican II.”
But then, the Missale Romanum of ’69/ ’70 was not the result of a reform according to the principles of Vatican II, either. So while the ’62 “rite” is at present a liturgical backwater (by dint of forceable suppression), the ’69/ ’70 “rite” is, to mix the metaphor, a liturgical pretender. How long it sits smugly on the throne of God’s temple remains to be seen. But sit forever it shall not.
Punch wrote:
“Todd, to go back a bit, it seems to me the only objection with any strength that you make to the ‘62 missal is that it is “a ritual form essentially unreformed by the principles of Vatican II.”
But then, the Missale Romanum of ‘69-‘70 was not the result of a reform according to the principles of Vatican II, either. So while the ‘62 “rite” is at present a liturgical backwater (by dint of forceable suppression), the ’69-’70 “rite” is, to mix the metaphor, a liturgical pretender. How long it sits smugly on the throne of God’s temple remains to be seen, but sit forever it shall not.”
)(
Good comeback. Like that. :)
“But then, the Missale Romanum of ‘69/ ‘70 was not the result of a reform according to the principles of Vatican II, either.”
That’s not what a study of the documents shows. Check the weird Latin titles in the in the category section of my blog. You’ll see it from an unvarnished perspective.
Todd claimed: That’s not what a study of the documents shows.
Well, we know from a close study of the work of the Consilium, and from the Church’s experience with the liturgical reform, that the 1970 Missale Romanum is contrary to Sacrosanctum Consilium 23:
Todd claimed: That’s not what a study of the documents shows.
Well, we know from a close study of the work of the Consilium, and from the Church’s experience with the liturgical reform, that the 1970 Missale Romanum is contrary to Sacrosanctum Consilium 23:
The Consilium that invented the new Roman Missal often was not careful in its investigations. Nor can it be established that so drastic and unprecedented and pastorally disastrous and unorganic a reform as we have in the 1970 Roman Missal could possibly have been “genuinely and certainly” required by the good of the Church. The archaeologism of the Consilium’s work is also the opposite of the principle that the new forms “grow organically from forms already existing.” Indeed, much of the new Missal does not grow organically from forms already existing, but was sometimes manufactured using forms that hadn’t existed since the third century A.D. (if they ever existed at all). Finally, thanks to the infinite number of Eucharistic Prayers, it is now inevitable that one find notable differences between rites in adjacent regions, indeed often in adjacent parishes. It is certain that the Missale Romanum of ‘69-‘70 was not the result of a reform according to the principles of Vatican II — hence the need for the Holy Father’s “Marshall Plan.”
JP,
You have located the only mention of organic growth in Sacrosanctum Concilium. One might argue that it should have been a higher priority. But it wasn’t. The 1970 Missal was approved by Rome, and accepted by all the world’s bishops. There was much more concern in those days for participation, renewal, evangelization, and looking out, rather than looking around.
Again, I would refer you to the in-depth examination on my web site for SC and the post-conciliar documents. They were all covered last year, the ones up to about 1971. Your comments on Sacrosanctum Concilium, Inter Oecumenici, Mysterium Fidei, Musicam Sacram, Tres Abhinc Annos, Eucharisticum Mysterium, and Liturgicae Instaurationes are most welcome.
Rather than proof-text for one’s favored philosophy, the liturgy really demands a thorough study. Too many Catholics, especially traditionalists have a deficient view of post-conciliar developments. It’s a value to be informed.
Todd said: You have located the only mention of organic growth in Sacrosanctum Concilium.
It doesn’t matter that organic growth is mentioned only once. All that matters is that it is mentioned, and how it is mentioned. It is presented as very important indeed: the second general norm in the document, right after the stipulaton that regulation of the liturgy is subject only to the Church’s authority and therefore no individual has the right to alter the liturgy on his own intiative. Of course that’s another principle of Vatican II’s call for liturgical reform that came to be ignored by most bishops, priests, and laymembers.
One might argue that it should have been a higher priority. But it wasn’t.
Um, conceding my point that some of the most important principles of Sacrosanctum Consilium were disregarded in the reform of the Missale Romanum is not exactly the best way to disagree with the contention that the new Missale Romanum was not the result of a reform according to the principles of Vatican II.
The 1970 Missal was approved by Rome, and accepted by all the world’s bishops.
There’s no dispute that the new Missal was approved by Rome and received by the bishops. What’s in dispute is whether or not the Missal was reformed in accordance with the principles laid down by the Council Fathers of Vatican II.
Jordon wrote:
“There’s no dispute that the new Missal was approved by Rome and received by the bishops. What’s in dispute is whether or not the Missal was reformed in accordance with the principles laid down by the Council Fathers of Vatican II.”
)(
That’s right. Once again, let’s have **another** quick review of the Novus Ordo. It was approved juridically by Rome as well as signed off by anyone else not in his right mind, but theologically, hermaneutically, organically, it’s **FALSE**. The Pope himself said as Cardinal and again as Pope.
Also, because the Novus Ordo is juridically approved, we all may worship at it without incurring anything… disdainful.
Let’s tone this down, please, or I will have to turn comments off on this too.
“What’s in dispute is whether or not the Missal was reformed in accordance with the principles laid down by the Council Fathers of Vatican II.”
Only the fringes of Catholicism dispute this. And as our host concedes, temperatures start rising when the dispute gets into the open air. The insistence from the fringes (that’s all of the fringes) is part of the emotional investment Catholics have in the liturgy. Don’t be fooled that there is not a strong affective streak in TLM’ers who disdain the Roman Rite’s ordinary form.
My assessment is that the discussion itself has become a spiritual stumbling block for some people. They become unwilling if not unable to actually look at the many liturgy documents produced in the 60’s and 70’s, to prayerfully study them and carefully see the principles applied (or sometimes not applied).
As human beings, we might come to realize pope, curia, bishops, and sometimes especially pastors and parishes fail in their ability to apply liturgical norms, directives, and guidelines. The lack of charity often generated in these discussions can carelessly lose the two-sided notion that liturgy is assisted by imperfect beings, therefore not perfect in its earthly manifestation *and* those same human beings are deserving of respect.
I’m turning off my own comments here. You have the links and a few of you are using them: you know where to go if you want a serious discussion without the feelings pouring out.
The first time I read Sacrosanctum Concilium I thought that the document looked to be two separate, conflicting documents stuck together. And I have not changed my opinion. I have often said that my liturgical views are to be found in SC simply because everyone’s views can be found there–there are texts that can be used to justify everything from the Lefebvrist position to clown celebrants with balloons on the altar.
And that is why when someone, excepting the pope, pulls out texts from SC justifying a position, it usually doesn’t carry a lot of weight with me.