![o{]:)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
ShareThis
To those who desire to accomodate
"If the Church were to accommodate herself to the world in any way that would entail a turning away from the Cross, this would not lead to a renewal of the Church, but only to her death."
Joseph Ratzinger
14 March 2010
• • • • • •
13 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
“in any way” , how does this phrase reconcile with the hundreds and hundreds of statements from Pope Paul VI, Bishops and Priests both during and after the Second Vatican Council, when it was so often said “the Church must open herself (accommodate) to the modern world”? The entire NO Mass was writeen in a way to drop it Catholocity, no? That surely is turning away from the cross, but I am sure many will argue a loophole or split hairs saying well, not really. Turning to face the people, with a Priest back to the cross could be interpreted as such as well.Not only the numerous examples of how it has happened but the statements of the hierarchy did and sometimes still do involve the exact opposite of what the Pope says. That is one of the biggest problem today is the ambiguous or contradictory statements coming from Rome and the hierarchy that lay people just don’t have the stomach to “finesse them” into a hermeneutic of continuity. We just want clear, concise, no loophole interpretive statements.
Comment by Mitchell NY — 14 March 2010 @ 11:14 amAMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN !
Comment by Guillaume — 14 March 2010 @ 11:17 amWhere did Car. Ratzinger write this wonderful assertion ?
Wonderful quote. Where does it appear in his writings?
Comment by catholicmidwest — 14 March 2010 @ 11:21 amThe protestants turned from the Cross and we can see where it has led. A Crossless Christianity, Archbishop Sheen called it. And how many expensive, ugly, barren modern Catholic Churches have no Crucifix other than the required processional one? How many only have an image of the Risen Christ? We indeed must also preach and pray as did St. Paul who knew Christ and Him crucified.
Comment by JosephMary — 14 March 2010 @ 11:29 amBlaming the protestants isn’t the answer to everything, JosephMary. The contemporary Catholic church does a whale of a job denying the cross too.
Comment by catholicmidwest — 14 March 2010 @ 11:41 amAmen! It’s time that people start facing up and adhering to what the Church teaches, whether they like it or not. And those in authority need to charitably use it to show people the truth. Without compromise!
Comment by Faithful Catholic — 14 March 2010 @ 11:45 am“to accommodate herself to the world”
I just returned from 11:30 Mass in my parish. Children’s choir (God bless them) sang mostly treacly-sweet songs, though a few were ok. No Latin at all. At the closing prayer, our Pastor scrubbed the closing (“The Lord be with you.”) to bring to our attention the GREAT singing today, and so we all applauded the choir. Then, after he processed out, we applauded again.
I feel utterly helpless here. I don’t know our paster personally—he’s new—but I wanted to say, “Father do you realize the Pope considers applause at Mass completely unacceptable, as it shows a serious misunderstanding about what the Mass is?”
Thank God I resisted the temptation, and just left w. my kids.
This “accomodation” is as pernicious as ditching “Veritatis Splendor” as I see it. The sober, but joyful, chaste beauty of our liturgy has been upended for a Disney-style celebration that veils the REAL PRESENCE of our Risen Lord.
Comment by Mike — 14 March 2010 @ 11:55 amAmen to that quote of our Papa when he was a Cardinal!
It says it all!
Comment by irishgirl — 14 March 2010 @ 12:54 pmWe need to watch our language here – or more precisely our use of language.
“Open to” does not necessarily mean “accommodate” (it might be to some, not to others including me)
The Church is indefectible. hence it cannot turn away from the Cross, for the Body of Christ hung on that cross once for all.
And the Church cannot die, so what is Papa Ratzinger saying? (what’s the context?) [If memory serves, this was in the context of an examination of the overly anthropocentric tone of Gaudium et spes, which can go very wrong when the proper corrective paragraphs do not correct the false reading.]
Comment by tzard — 14 March 2010 @ 1:35 pmModernism (as defined) and the abuse of “higher” Biblical criticism go back to the turn of the 20th Century. Post-modernism, with its lack of objective truth, may be easier to attack. The Church has been successful against both with its emphasis on objective truth.
Comment by Tom in NY — 14 March 2010 @ 1:49 pmBut readers may want to remember that the organized Church has been under attack since even before it was big enough to be organized. There’s no need to be surprised.
Salutationes omnibus.
Hi, Mike,
Could you please help me a second, and please understand I’m not trying to criticize you? First, I agree with the Holy Father and with you, in that I believe applause is inappropriate at Mass, especially when the bloody “music ministers” are applauded.
Why is it, then, that the Holy Father is surrounded by applause whenever he offers Mass in the open? I remember his first Christmas Eve Mass as Pope, and there was applause everywhere at the conclusion of Mass.
Mike, could you help me, here, and can anyone reading enlighten me? I’m being serious; I’m not trying to cause trouble, be disrespectful or start a fight. I mean no harm.
Comment by Bob Glassmeyer — 14 March 2010 @ 2:08 pmBob—no problem, although I have never been to a Mass with the Holy Father present. My sense, from what you say, and from experience of Masses w. Cardinals present, etc., is that specifically applauding the music of a liturgy is what the problem is, for it’s an offering, an act of worship, of prayer. As my 14 yr old son says, we don’t applaud after praying (“good prayer, man”).
Applause for B16, for his presence, his words in a homily, is in a separate category. That’s how I see it, although I may be off here.
Comment by Mike — 14 March 2010 @ 2:40 pmI wonder if Sr. Keehan of the Catholic Health Ass’n. would be able to offer any plausible rationalizations of how this quote might
Comment by Clinton — 14 March 2010 @ 6:28 pmnot apply to her organization. From the post above describing the CHA’s endorsement of the current health care legislation, I’d
say “Sr. Accommodation” should have been her name in religion.