Anything but RadTradism!
Michelle Arnold has posted a follow-up to her lament about having to "survive" the Sunday Mass - the very idea of which still boggles my mind.
I'm still unclear as to how Michelle can see her way clear to rebel against the approved liturgy of her parish - I didn't see anything in her post that indicated that her diocesan bishop disapproved of such liturgies as the one she was forced to "survive," so I'm not sure where she gets the idea that it's ok to complain about it (assuming for the moment the validity of her arguments against "RadTradism," that is).
Still, undaunted by this contradiction, she goes on.
Methinks Michelle still hasn't seen past the tree she's wrapped around in order to see the forest around her. There are "genuine problems in the Church," but "liturgical abuses" don't even begin to scratch the surface.
A larger problem, and one which I would like to see her tackle if she's really interested in addressing the sources of disapproval amongst "RadTrads" and offering solutions, is the problem of why the local ordinary allows the liturgy to be abused.
This being the case, why can't Michelle come to appreciate her "RadTrad" brethren who prefer, not just the Tridentine liturgy, but all of the rich traditions of the Church (such as the old rites of Holy Baptism complete with their powerful exorcisms, or of Confirmation), and who "dislike the black eye" given to the Church at large by those who suffer no qualms at abusing Her sacred liturgies and customs on a regular basis?
Oh, Michelle ... how blind we can be when we choose to ignore the facts. Does it not occur to her that the only reason the pope granted an "indult" at all was because of the growing influence of Archbishop Lefebvre and his priestly society that refused to give up the Tridentine Mass?
In 1980, John Paul II invited the bishops of the world to report back to him on, among other things, "possible resistance that may have arisen" to the "Missal promulgated in 1970 by authority of Pope Paul VI." The bishops reported back that "the problem of priests and faithful holding to the so-called 'Tridentine' rite was almost completely solved." (Quattuor abhinc annos)
It was in response to this "problem" that the original Tridentine indult was granted.
Further, it was in direct response to the 1988 consecrations of four new bishops for the Society of St. Pius X at the hands of Archbishop Lefebvre that the pope called for "a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See, for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962." (Ecclesia Dei adflicta)
In the practical realm of the bishops actually carrying out this wish of the Roman Pontiff, it must be acknowledged that indult Masses have been established primarily in dioceses where there already exists chapels run by the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, or some other independent priest. A quick scan of the Latin Mass Directory (www.traditio.com) reveals that only one out of the 50 states has a diocesan indult Mass that does not also have a Mass offered by one of the above groups.
In my own diocese, as also in many other dioceses, the indult was set up precisely to counter-act the popularity of the SSPX or other such Traditional groups.
To say that "RadTrads are likely to be at least part of the reason many bishops hesitate to expand permission to celebrate the indult" just demonstrates a lack of insight into the reality of the situation.
If it were not for the efforts of Archbishop Lefebvre and those like him, we would all be "surviving" the Sunday Mass.
Interesting way to frame the issue. Catholics who have allowed their "spiritual peace" to be disturbed? On the contrary, it is precisely by finding the safe harbors offered by the SSPX and independent chapels that "RadTrads" have preserved their sanity, when staying in their abusive Novus Ordo parishes would have ruined not only their "spiritual peace," but perhaps also their faith.
Or is Michelle simply unaware of the statistical facts that reveal a massive decline in faith, vocations, ordinations, morality, and Mass attendance in Novus Ordo circles?
Pope Paul VI lamented that the Church was in "auto-demolition" mode ever since the council, and the numbers show that the faith of millions has been destroyed by the New Mass - are we really to accept this state of affairs and go on putting our souls in harm's way, all for the sake of avoiding "RadTradism"?
It would appear so. Michelle's advice is:
Let's stop and think about that for a minute: this poor gentleman "could not worship as a Catholic in his own diocese." That is a serious, serious problem. What kind of advice is it, then, to tell someone like this that they need to "be at home" in such a parish by "simply ... attending long enough to become part of parish life"?
Sorry, Mr. Johnson, but you're just going to have to accept the fact that you can't worship as a Catholic in your own parish - our advice is that you learn to worship as a Lutheran in your Catholic parish, and more importantly, get more involved in your parish life. That should work wonders for your faith and salvation. At the very least, it will keep you from falling into "RadTradism," which everyone knows is the only mortal sin left these days.
I also found this statement to be particularly damning:
Now, let me get this straight: pastors get reassigned, liturgy commissions shape-shift, and DREs come and go - and this should be expected to affect the immutable and unchanging faith, particularly as it is expressed in the parish liturgical life, how?
But it does, doesn't it? Michelle is essentially admitting that Catholic parishes have become Protestantized - the faith and worship of the community is subject to personalities now.
This sad state of affairs is the real problem in the Church today. It's not that liturgies get abused, it's that the liturgy and the faith it manifests is so easily shaped and molded by the whims of individuals, and that diocesan bishops are doing little if anything to stop the tragedy.
That is a disease which deserves an inoculation, if ever there was one.
Humanitarianism before righteous indignation, eh? I wonder if Michelle will take this advice to heart and bake a nice batch of cookies for her local SSPX priest? Maybe she'll discover that she has less about which to disagree with them.
And finally, there is this:
This is just too scary ... isn't this the diseased mentality which plagues abused children today? Daddy beats me, and Daddy is never wrong, so perhaps I should examine myself and consider whether I deserved this abuse?
That's twisted reasoning, but it seems to translate very well into our current Church situation. My priests are abusing me and my faith by their abuse of the liturgy, and the bishops aren't stopping it; but the Church is always right, so perhaps this is really all my fault? Yes, that's it. I'm the reason behind the abuses in liturgy and teaching in my parish - if only I would repent, all would be well.
Someone inoculate me against that kind of mentality ...
I'm still unclear as to how Michelle can see her way clear to rebel against the approved liturgy of her parish - I didn't see anything in her post that indicated that her diocesan bishop disapproved of such liturgies as the one she was forced to "survive," so I'm not sure where she gets the idea that it's ok to complain about it (assuming for the moment the validity of her arguments against "RadTradism," that is).
Still, undaunted by this contradiction, she goes on.
What is my definition of radical Traditionalism? Unlike a devotion to the ancient Catholic customs and disciplines of the Church, radical Traditionalism is when a Catholic allows himself to become so disillusioned with genuine problems in the Church, such as liturgical abuses, and begins to reject the Church’s authority to regulate the Church’s customs and disciplines.
Methinks Michelle still hasn't seen past the tree she's wrapped around in order to see the forest around her. There are "genuine problems in the Church," but "liturgical abuses" don't even begin to scratch the surface.
A larger problem, and one which I would like to see her tackle if she's really interested in addressing the sources of disapproval amongst "RadTrads" and offering solutions, is the problem of why the local ordinary allows the liturgy to be abused.
I personally know a number of Traditionalists who can in no way be termed “RadTrad,” who simply prefer the Tridentine liturgy, and who dislike the black eye given the movement by RadTrads.
This being the case, why can't Michelle come to appreciate her "RadTrad" brethren who prefer, not just the Tridentine liturgy, but all of the rich traditions of the Church (such as the old rites of Holy Baptism complete with their powerful exorcisms, or of Confirmation), and who "dislike the black eye" given to the Church at large by those who suffer no qualms at abusing Her sacred liturgies and customs on a regular basis?
But I can say that the RadTrads are likely to be at least part of the reason many bishops hesitate to expand permission to celebrate the indult Tridentine or to form indult Tridentine parishes.
Oh, Michelle ... how blind we can be when we choose to ignore the facts. Does it not occur to her that the only reason the pope granted an "indult" at all was because of the growing influence of Archbishop Lefebvre and his priestly society that refused to give up the Tridentine Mass?
In 1980, John Paul II invited the bishops of the world to report back to him on, among other things, "possible resistance that may have arisen" to the "Missal promulgated in 1970 by authority of Pope Paul VI." The bishops reported back that "the problem of priests and faithful holding to the so-called 'Tridentine' rite was almost completely solved." (Quattuor abhinc annos)
It was in response to this "problem" that the original Tridentine indult was granted.
Further, it was in direct response to the 1988 consecrations of four new bishops for the Society of St. Pius X at the hands of Archbishop Lefebvre that the pope called for "a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See, for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962." (Ecclesia Dei adflicta)
In the practical realm of the bishops actually carrying out this wish of the Roman Pontiff, it must be acknowledged that indult Masses have been established primarily in dioceses where there already exists chapels run by the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, or some other independent priest. A quick scan of the Latin Mass Directory (www.traditio.com) reveals that only one out of the 50 states has a diocesan indult Mass that does not also have a Mass offered by one of the above groups.
In my own diocese, as also in many other dioceses, the indult was set up precisely to counter-act the popularity of the SSPX or other such Traditional groups.
To say that "RadTrads are likely to be at least part of the reason many bishops hesitate to expand permission to celebrate the indult" just demonstrates a lack of insight into the reality of the situation.
If it were not for the efforts of Archbishop Lefebvre and those like him, we would all be "surviving" the Sunday Mass.
I believe that a sharp distinction must be made between Catholic Traditionalism (which is a spirituality allowed by the Church) and RadTradism (which is a movement of Catholics who have allowed themselves to become so angry that it has disturbed their spiritual peace).
Interesting way to frame the issue. Catholics who have allowed their "spiritual peace" to be disturbed? On the contrary, it is precisely by finding the safe harbors offered by the SSPX and independent chapels that "RadTrads" have preserved their sanity, when staying in their abusive Novus Ordo parishes would have ruined not only their "spiritual peace," but perhaps also their faith.
Or is Michelle simply unaware of the statistical facts that reveal a massive decline in faith, vocations, ordinations, morality, and Mass attendance in Novus Ordo circles?
Pope Paul VI lamented that the Church was in "auto-demolition" mode ever since the council, and the numbers show that the faith of millions has been destroyed by the New Mass - are we really to accept this state of affairs and go on putting our souls in harm's way, all for the sake of avoiding "RadTradism"?
It would appear so. Michelle's advice is:
Don’t church-shop. Recently, a gentleman contacted Catholic Answers asking if he could register at a parish outside of his diocese because “all of the parishes in his diocese” were allegedly so problematic that he felt could not worship as a Catholic in his own diocese.
Let's stop and think about that for a minute: this poor gentleman "could not worship as a Catholic in his own diocese." That is a serious, serious problem. What kind of advice is it, then, to tell someone like this that they need to "be at home" in such a parish by "simply ... attending long enough to become part of parish life"?
Sorry, Mr. Johnson, but you're just going to have to accept the fact that you can't worship as a Catholic in your own parish - our advice is that you learn to worship as a Lutheran in your Catholic parish, and more importantly, get more involved in your parish life. That should work wonders for your faith and salvation. At the very least, it will keep you from falling into "RadTradism," which everyone knows is the only mortal sin left these days.
I also found this statement to be particularly damning:
Parishes are rarely static -- pastors are reassigned, liturgy committees change hands, DREs come and go -- and a parish you think will satisfy you could shift toward laxity within a few years. If you too easily throw in the towel and move on, where will your roaming end?
Now, let me get this straight: pastors get reassigned, liturgy commissions shape-shift, and DREs come and go - and this should be expected to affect the immutable and unchanging faith, particularly as it is expressed in the parish liturgical life, how?
But it does, doesn't it? Michelle is essentially admitting that Catholic parishes have become Protestantized - the faith and worship of the community is subject to personalities now.
This sad state of affairs is the real problem in the Church today. It's not that liturgies get abused, it's that the liturgy and the faith it manifests is so easily shaped and molded by the whims of individuals, and that diocesan bishops are doing little if anything to stop the tragedy.
That is a disease which deserves an inoculation, if ever there was one.
Get to know your priests and religious. When a priest or religious is just a face on the altar or in the classroom, it is easy to depersonalize them into cogs in a “Vatican apparatus.” When you invite them to a meal, bring them Christmas cookies, get to know them on a person-to-person basis, you are inoculated against a tendency to believe the worst about people with whom you might disagree.
Humanitarianism before righteous indignation, eh? I wonder if Michelle will take this advice to heart and bake a nice batch of cookies for her local SSPX priest? Maybe she'll discover that she has less about which to disagree with them.
And finally, there is this:
Examine your conscience. ... If your parish disappoints you, first examine your own conscience to see whether you are yourself a part of the problem.
This is just too scary ... isn't this the diseased mentality which plagues abused children today? Daddy beats me, and Daddy is never wrong, so perhaps I should examine myself and consider whether I deserved this abuse?
That's twisted reasoning, but it seems to translate very well into our current Church situation. My priests are abusing me and my faith by their abuse of the liturgy, and the bishops aren't stopping it; but the Church is always right, so perhaps this is really all my fault? Yes, that's it. I'm the reason behind the abuses in liturgy and teaching in my parish - if only I would repent, all would be well.
Someone inoculate me against that kind of mentality ...
<< Home